INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORKdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/...forest management;...
Transcript of INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORKdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/...forest management;...
MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF KEY
BIODIVERSITY AREAS IN BELIZE PROJECT
INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK
July 31st, 2014
RP1498 v2 REV
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....iii
A.INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Background………… ........................................................................................................................................ 1
B. Description of Project ............................................................................................................................... 1
C. Overview of Implementation Arrangements ............................................................................................ 4
D.Principles and Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 5
Legal Framework. .......................................................................................................................................... 7
A. National Law. ............................................................................................................................................ 7
B. Legal recourse for grievance redressal ................................................................................................... 10
C. Gaps between Belizean laws and Bank’s resettlement policy ................................................................ 10
PREPARATION OF INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLANS ............................................................. 14
TIMING……………. ......................................................................................................................................... 14
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, DEGREE OF IMPACT AND ENTITLEMENTS ............................................................... 15
CONTENT………… .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Verifiable Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation Implementation of RAPs. ......................................... 17
PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE ................................................................................................. 18
Grievance Redress Mechanisms ................................................................................................................. 18
Institutional arrangements and sources of funding .................................................................................... 20
Annex 1: Map of Chiquibul Forest and Adjacent Communities .................................................................. 23
Annex 2: Stakeholder Consultations ........................................................................................................... 24
1.1 Inception Workshop .............................................................................................................................. 24
1.2 Field Visits Notes ................................................................................................................................... 37
1.3 KBAs target areas selection process ..................................................................................................... 43
1.4 Participants List for Validation Workshop ............................................................................................. 48
1.5 Toledo Consultation Workshop ............................................................................................................ 66
1.6 Indigenous Leaders Consultation .......................................................................................................... 75
1.7 Summary of Concerns from all consultations & Response ................................................................... 80
ii
ABBREVIATIONS:
R & R - Resettlement & Rehabilitation
AP - Project Affected People
PF - Policy Framework
ARP - Abbreviated Resettlement Plan
RP - Resettlement Plan
KBA - Key Biodiversity Area
PMU - Project Management Unit
PSC - Project Steering Committee
WB - World Bank
NPAS - National Protected Areas Secretariat
MFFSD - Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development
PACT - Protected Areas Conservation Trust
OP/BP - Operation Policies & Bank Procedures
GRA - General Registry Act
HTPA - Housing and Town Planning Act
LPA - Law of Property Act
RLA - Registered Land Act
iii
GLOSSARY
“Compensation” means the reparation at replacement cost as determined in this Policy Framework
in exchange for assets acquired or affected by ‘affected persons’.
“Displaced Persons” means APs who are forced to relocate from their previous location because (i)
all of their land, buildings, and assets are acquired or their livelihood activities are displaced or, (ii)
because the amount of land or buildings acquired renders the remaining portion economically
unviable or uninhabitable.
“Land Acquisition” means the process of acquiring land under the legally mandated procedures of
eminent domain.
“Project Affected Person” (AP) means the people directly affected by land acquisition through loss
of part or all of their assets whether temporarily or permanently including land, houses, other
structures, businesses, crops/trees, or other types of assets.
“Replacement Cost” is defined as, in the case of urban areas, the pre-displacement market value of
land of equal size and use, with similar or improved pubic infrastructure facilities and services and
located in the vicinity of the affected and plus the cost of any registration and transfer taxes.
“Resettlement” means the relocation of displaced persons into new residential locations.
1
A. INTRODUCTION
Background Belize’s natural resources are critical to the health of its economy and well-being of the most
vulnerable population. As a result, Belize has signed a signed a Country Partnership Strategy (CPS)
with World Bank for the Financial Year, 2012-2015 which supports the country’s efforts to adopt a
sustainable natural resource-based economic model, while enhancing Belize’s resilience to climate
change and natural hazards.
To this end, the Government of Belize through the Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable
Development, with the assistance of the World Bank has received funding from the Global
Environment Facility “GEF” to develop and implement the project entitled “Management and
Protection of Key Biodiversity Areas in Belize.”
The Project Development Objective (PDO) is to strengthen natural resource management and
biodiversity conservation through the mitigation of threats to Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) in Belize.
Furthermore, project activities will seek to improve the management of the target protected areas
through support for activities such as delineation of protected areas boundaries, enforcement and
monitoring.
Project preparation activities have suggested that there are activities occurring within one or more of
the target sites that may not be consistent with the protected area designation. This project has not
been designed to address this specific issue but may result in recommendations due to land tenure
assessment within protected areas to be considered by the Government of Belize. As such, it is not
contemplated that land acquisition or resettlement will occur as a result of direct project activities.
However, the Government may choose to pursue this line of action independently, taking into
consideration the recommendations from the assessments to be conducted during implementation of
the project. Furthermore, the community based activities and livelihood opportunities to be
implemented under the project may serve to buffer any socioeconomic impacts that may occur as a
result of GOB’s interventions.
B. Description of Project Project activities will be aimed at helping to reduce deforestation rates and fragmentation pressure in
targeted KBAs and enhance sustainable forest management practices; improve the protection of
forest reserves and reduce forest fires; improve local livelihoods through community-based
sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services; strengthen legal and administrative frameworks for
protected areas (PAs); manage protected areas (PAs) in the KBAs more effectively; strengthen
capacity for compliance monitoring and enforcement of key agencies responsible for the environment
and enhance the coordination among Government agencies charged with conservation; enhance
effectiveness of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) System; and mainstream climate
change considerations into the National Protected Areas System Plan (NPASP).
2
The Project will finance the following four components: Component 1: Supporting Forest Protection and Sustainable Forest Management Activities in Key Biodiversity Areas
(1.1) Forest protection (1.1a) Support for the review of the Belize’s land tenure legislation with a view to identifying potential improvements to such legislation; (1.1b) Support for training required to promote a REDD+ program; and (1.1c) Support for the development and establishment of a fire incidence rapid response team, including through preparation of a work plan and the provision of training and required equipment (e.g., fire rakes, fire swatters, nomex clothing, etc). (1.2) Sustainable forest management: contributing to reduction of emissions from deforestation and degradation and increase in sequestration of CO2. Sustainable forest management with local communities in targeted areas will be achieved through (1.2a) Rehabilitation of critical areas of high conservation values through identification, development and implementation of community-based Sub-projects, incorporating climate change mitigation and resiliency measures; (1.2b) Implementation of Sub-projects for sustainable harvesting and marketing of non-timber forest products (such as xate, cohune nut, bay leaf, and popta seeds) and for other community-based forestry opportunities, including, but not limited to, assessment and identification of opportunities for community-based forestry, stakeholder mapping and mobilization, identification of potential products, marketing and product development, training on product development, market analysis and development, and development of business plans; (1.2c) Support for identification and implementation of activities raising awareness on sustainable forest management; and (1.2d) Support for the development and implementation of sustainable forest management plans, including through assessing existing forestry standards (e.g., reduced impact logging tool, M&E tool, voluntary code of conduct) for monitoring and evaluation, existing tools and programs to reduce illegal logging, and for the establishment of an forest information system (FIS) including collection and management of information on change in forest cover, degradation, illegal activities, fire, sustainable forest management, REDD+, and a data sharing protocol with environmental impact assessments and provision of training on such FIS. Component 2: Promoting Effective Management of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs): Effective management is critical to mitigate threats to the KBAs.
(2.1) Improving management of the KBAs: (2.1a) Support for the implementation of recommendations set forth in the PA Rationalization Exercise, including development of procedures, guidelines, criteria and corresponding regulations for the declaration, re-alignment and de-reservation of PAs and operationalization of Belize’s comprehensive PAs legislation to integrate those PAs which are currently managed under different legislative acts; (2.1b) Support for the development and effective implementation of PA management plans in the targeted Project Sites, including through identification of management needs, development of a geographic information system (GIS) database and application for data management and analysis, provision of natural resource management training and mentoring, and capacity building of Protected Areas Co-management Organizations; and (2.1c) Support for updating the National Protected Areas System Plan (NPASP) to take into account considerations of climate change mitigation and resilience.
3
(2.2) Monitoring and compliance of PAs: (2.2a) Support for reviewing the legal framework for the protection of biodiversity and forests with a view to identifying potential improvements to such legal framework, including an analysis of and proposed updates to Belize’s Forest Act and Wildlife Act; (2.2b) Support for implementation of monitoring and compliance in the Project Sites through demarcation of Project Site boundaries, establishment of a Compliance and Monitoring Unit, development and implementation of an operational plan for ensuring compliance with protected status of PAs, provision of training, equipment and transportation for the Compliance and Monitoring Unit; and (2.2c) Support for the development and establishment of a biodiversity monitoring system for KBAs and for increasing biodiversity monitoring capacity, including through support for implementation of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Program in the Project Sites, incorporation of biodiversity information into FIS for the Project Sites, development of biodiversity monitoring guidelines, identification of a biodiversity monitoring field crew, and provision of monitoring tools and training on biodiversity monitoring to stakeholders. Component 3: Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building for Enhanced Enforcement of Environmental Regulations
This component will promote enhanced coordination and provide training among Government agencies charged with environmental management. This is critical for the long-term protection of areas through proper natural resources management, which includes climate change mitigation, and biodiversity conservation. (3.1) Increased coordination for balancing environmental management and development: (3.1a) Support for the establishment of a departmental committee for the promotion of a balance between environmental management and development needs, and (3.1b) Strengthening of compliance monitoring capacity of staff in the MFFSD’s Department of the Environment and other key agencies including provision of equipment and training in thematic areas such as compliance monitoring, use of new equipment, site inspection techniques, environmental audits, interpretation of lab analyses, and water quality monitoring. (3.2) Strengthening and improvement of environmental screening tools and processes. (3.2a) Support for the establishment of a standardized environmental impact assessment (EIA) program and protocols for enhanced environmental screening and scoping, including revising Belize’s existing EIA program, updating the EIA manual, and mainstreaming the EIA processes into relevant institutions and entities; (3.2b) Support to improve the capacity for decision-making in the EIA process, including through the development and implementation of an information management system for EIAs, the definition of roles and responsibilities of Belize’s National Environmental Assessment Committee (NEAC) and other key agencies in the EIA process, an assessment of the EIA process with a view to improving such process with a focus on stakeholder involvement, and the review of, and development of proposed amendments to, Belize’s EIA regulations to include other environmental tools and processes; and (3.2c) Training for staff in the MFFSD’s Department of the Environment and other key agencies on other environmental management tools, instruments and concepts to enhance the environmental screening and clearance process. Component 4: Project management, monitoring and assessment
This component will support the Project Implementing Agency Group (PIAG) to undertake
4
(4.a) project management and implementation support including technical, administrative and fiduciary support and compliance with environmental and social safeguards, (4.b) monitoring and evaluation, data collection, stakeholder involvement and coordination.
C. Overview of Implementation Arrangements The Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development (MFFSD) is responsible for the
overall implementation of the project while PACT will serve as the fiduciary manager of grant funds on
the behalf of the Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development. The Ministry of Natural
Resources and Agriculture (MNRA) will be a key executing partner as the Ministry is a key agency in
the public administration structure of Belize, and is responsible for the land distribution and
management in Belize. The PIU within the MFFSD is responsible for the compliance with
environmental and social safeguards including any actions under this framework including the
implementation of RAPs under this framework.
The Project Steering Committee (PSC) will support project implementation by providing guidance on
national policy, and on strategic approaches for successful project implementation. The PSC will be
chaired by the Chief Executive Officer1 of the MFFSD, and comprised of Chief Executive Officers
(CEOs) of key government ministries including the Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture,
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Ministry of Labor, Local Government, Rural
Development and National Emergency Management, Ministry of Tourism and Culture and Ministry of
Human Development, Social Transformation and Poverty Alleviation.
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will provide technical oversight for project implementation
and will act as the selection committee to screen and recommend applicants for the project
management unit and consultants to be financed under the project. The TAC will be comprised of the
Chief Forest Officer, Chief Environmental Officer, Chief Agricultural Officer, a representative from the
Lands and Surveys Department, Principal Climate Change Officer, Economist, Ministry of Economic
Development, NPAS Program Director, and the Executive Director of the Association of Protected
Areas Management Organizations (APAMO).
The National Protected Areas Secretariat (NPAS) is the body currently responsible for coordinating
the implementation of the National Protected Areas Policy and System Plan (NAPSP) and has been
designated as the unit that will house and oversee coordination of the project. NPAS provides project
coordination support to projects related to implementation of the NAPSP.
A Project Management Unit (PMU) will be established within the NPAS to carry out the day-to-day
management of the project, including coordination, supervision, monitoring and quality assurance.
The PMU will be comprised of a Project Manager and a Project Officer who will work with the
Department of Environment and the Forest Department to prepare all project documentation required
by MFFSD, PACT, and the World Bank. In addition, each Department will identify a Technical Officer
to provide technical support to the PMU, either from its current pool or from new hire that will be
financed from allocations for implementation of project activities. The PPMU within the MFFSD is
1 The CEO of Government Ministries is the equivalent of Permanent Secretaries in the English speaking Caribbean.
5
responsible for the compliance with environmental and social safeguards including any actions under
this framework.
PACT is the fiduciary manager for NPAS and will be responsible for ensuring sound fiduciary
management of the project’s resources in accordance with the Project Operations Manual (POM). Its
responsibilities will include inter alia financial management and procurement of goods and services.
D. Principles and Objectives This Involuntary Resettlement Policy Framework (IRPF) will serve as a guide for the Government of
Belize if it is determined that activities occurring with the target sites are not consistent with the
protected areas designation and resettlement will be pursued. The IRPF introduces additional
compensation measures to achieve compensation at replacement cost together with implementation
and consultation arrangements to minimize impacts on those affected by resettlement.
In World Bank assisted projects, the Government of Belize (GOB) is expected to take all necessary
measures to mitigate adverse social impacts. Therefore, the Policy Framework will supplement
existing Belizean law as it pertains to resettlement since it has been identified that project activities
will not directly result in the resettlement of persons. By virtue of the protected areas legislation or any
other legislation, GOB may also decide to pursue interventions to address activities inconsistent with
the protected areas designation of the project target sites.
Where adverse social impacts are identified, resettlement and rehabilitation action plans (RAPs) will
be prepared based on policies and procedures laid out in this framework. However, every effort will
be made to avoid or minimize the need for involuntary resettlement. Therefore, the principle objective
of the PF is to ensure that any affected persons will be compensated for their losses and provided
with rehabilitation measures to assist them to improve, or at least maintain, their pre-project living
standards and income earning capacity.
The AP includes the following persons to be identified by the baseline census:
(a) The persons whose place of business or employment, and/or land is in part or in total affected
(permanently or temporarily);
(b) Persons whose houses are in part or in total affected by;
(c) Persons whose business are affected in part or in total (temporarily or permanently); and
(d) Persons whose crops, trees and fixed assets are affected in part or in total.
The principles outlined in the World Bank’s Operation Policies and Bank Procedures 4.12 has been
adopted in preparing this Policy Framework (PF). In this regard the following principles and objectives
would be applied:
(a) Acquisition of land and other assets, and resettlement of people will be minimized as much as
possible. Where land acquisition is unavoidable, the specific interventions will be designed to
minimize adverse impact on the (AP), especially the vulnerable groups;
6
(b) All AP will be compensated, relocated and/or rehabilitated, if required, so as to improve their
standard of living, income earning capacity and production capacity, or at least to restore them to
previous levels;
(c) All AP residing in, or cultivating land, or having rights over resources within the target area of the
socioeconomic survey are entitled to compensation for their losses and/or income rehabilitation. Lack
of legal right to the assets lost will not bar the AP from entitlement to such compensation,
rehabilitation and relocation measures;
(d) Replacement house lots, place of business and land will be as close as possible to the land that
was lost, and acceptable to the AP;
(e) Land-for-land is the preferred option. The GOB is responsible for all land acquisition and
related compensation costs. Compensation in this instance will be made in cash at full market
value or may be “land for land” as the government sometimes does. Preference should be given
to land-based resettlement strategies for displaced persons whose livelihoods are land-based.
This includes indigenous peoples and rural communities strongly dependent on farming for their
livelihoods. Where project funds are being used, this will be managed directly by the PMU. For
land compensation this will be covered by the [GOB] as appropriate. Payment of cash
compensation for lost assets may be appropriate where (a) livelihoods are land-based but the
land taken for the project is a small fraction of the affected asset and the residual is economically
viable; (b) active markets for land, housing, and labor exist, displaced persons use such markets,
and there is sufficient supply of land and housing; or (c) livelihoods are not land-based. Cash
compensation levels should be sufficient to replace the lost land and other assets at full
replacement cost in local markets. Any expenditure that goes beyond what is generally expected
under the project will likely require the approval of the Cabinet.
In all instances, displaced people must be informed about their options and rights pertaining to resettlement, consulted on, offered choices among, and provided with technically and economically feasible resettlement alternatives and provided prompt and effective compensation at full replacement cost for losses of assets attributable direct to the project.
Form and level of compensation under the project will be the outcome of a negotiated process
with the respective property owners as provided for under Belizean law and in compliance with
WB OP 4.12 where consultation on resettlement options are required
(f) The resettlement transition period will be minimized; land-for-land and/or cash compensation
provided to the AP may be completed during the implementation of project activities.
(g) Resettlement plans will be implemented following consultations with the AP, and will have the
endorsement of the AP;
(h) The previous level of community services and access to resources will be maintained or improved
after resettlement;
7
(i) Any acquisition of, or restriction on access to resources owned or manage by AP as common
property will be mitigated by arrangements ensuring access of those AP to equivalent resources on a
continuing basis.
Legal Framework
A. National Law The Housing and Town Planning Act (HTPA) chapter 182 of the Laws of Belize which was enacted
in 1947 is another important piece of legislation to consider as that Act deals with Town and Country
Planning and also slum clearance and housing.
Sections 60 and 61 of the HTPA set out how land is acquired. Those provisions read as follows:
“60. The Minister may purchase by agreement any land to which a scheme applies, which is
required for the purposes of the scheme, and in particular, but without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing words, he may purchase any such land-
(a) which is required for carrying out the improvement or controlling the
development of frontages to, or of lands abutting on or adjacent to, any road, or any
proposed road which is to be constructed wholly or partly at the public expense; or
(b) which is required for securing the satisfactory development of any land in
accordance with the provisions of the scheme in any case where, by reason of the land
being held in plots which are of inconvenient size or shape, or of which the
arrangement or alignment is inconvenient, or by reason of the multiplicity of interests in
the land, or by reason of the fact that the land is being used in a manner or for
purposes inconsistent with the provisions of the scheme, it does not appear to be
reasonably practicable to secure such development otherwise than by purchase of the
land; or
(c) which forms the site of a road which is to be used for some other purpose
under any provision in the scheme; or
(d) which is required for the purpose of providing accommodation for a person
whose premises have been purchased for the purposes of the scheme.
61. Where the Minister is unable to purchase by agreement any land which he is authorized to
purchase, he may acquire such land in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Public
Purposes) Act.”
From the HTPA we observe that where land has to be compulsorily acquired, then the Land
Acquisition (Public Purposes) has to be employed and assessment of compensation falls to be
determined pursuant to that Act. However, if the claim is for compensation which does not stem from
8
compulsory acquisition of land, then the matter is decided by a single judge in accordance with
section 70 which states:
“70.-(1) Any question arising under this Part as to-
(a) the right of a claimant to recover compensation; or
(b) the right of the Central Authority to recover any amount
in respect of an increase in the value of any property, or
by way of a special charge on any property; or
(c) the amount and manner of payment of any such recoverable compensation or
amount as aforesaid, shall, unless the Central Authority and all persons
concerned otherwise agree, be referred to and determined by a judge by notice
in writing.”
Land tenure in the Laws of Belize
Land in Belize is either national lands or private lands. Two types of estates exist: the leasehold
interest and the freehold interest. Leasehold is an interest in land for a term or years whereas the
freehold interest is what most approximates absolute title and the term can be infinite.
National lands may be leased, sold or reserved for public use. The National Lands Act chapter 191 of
the Laws of Belize establishes the regime for leasing and disposing of national lands. Any lease of
seven years or more is by way of a Minister’s Fiat Lease and when land is sold, the title is by way of a
Minister’s Fiat Grant in those areas which are not compulsory registration areas. Where the land
being leased or granted falls within a compulsory registration area, then the land leased or granted is
registered pursuant to the provisions of the Registered Land Act chapter 194 of the Laws of Belize
and a lease certificate (in case of leases) or land certificate (in case of land sold) is issued by the
Land Registry.
Private lands are dealt with in accordance with the General Registry Act (GRA) chapter 327, the Law
of Property Act (LPA) chapter 190 and the Registered Land Act (RLA) chapter 194. The LPA sets out
the substantive law relating to interests in land and the GRA which deals with the recording of Deeds
of Conveyances (otherwise called common law conveyancing) and the registration of titles under the
Torrens type system of registration deals mostly with the procedures with respect to the recording of
deeds and the registration of titles. The RLA makes a departure from recording deeds and titles to the
registering of land. Its approach focuses on keeping the history of a parcel of land and interest in it
rather than inter partes transactions regarding land. The RLA contains both the substantive and
procedural law for dealings in lands falling within compulsory registration areas of Belize. When land
is registered pursuant to the provisions of the RLA, the provisions of the GRA and the LPA no longer
apply and the controlling legislation is then the RLA.
9
Legislation related to resettlement
In the HTPA, under the part dealing with slum clearance and housing there are provisions that
contain some social welfare aspects that are designed to give assistance to displaced persons. Most
notable examples are sections 19(3) and (4) and section 30. These provide as follows:
“19 (3) The Minister shall not approve of any scheme unless he is satisfied
that-
(a) the size of the area is such that the housing conditions therein
can be remedied within a reasonable period;
(b) in so far as suitable accommodation available for personswho will be displaced by the
steps the Central Authorityproposes to take for the clearance and development ofthe area
does not exist, the Central Authority will provide,or secure the provision of, such
accommodation in advanceof the displacements which will from time to time
becomenecessary as these steps are taken.
(4) In this section, “suitable accommodation” means, in relation to
the occupier of a dwelling-house, a dwelling-house as to which the following
conditions are satisfied, that is to say-
(a) the house must be a house wherein the occupier and hisfamily can live without causing it
to be overcrowded;
(b) the local authority must certify the house to be suitable tothe needs of the occupier and his
family as regards securityof tenure and proximity to place of work and otherwise tobe suitable
in relation to his means; and
(c) if the house belongs to the local authority, it must certify itto be suitable to the needs of the
occupier and his familyas respects extent of accommodation, having regard tothe standard
specified in this Part.
30.-(1) The Central Authority may pay to any person displaced from any
dwelling-house or other building in a slum clearance area or a redevelopment
area, as the case may be, which has been acquired under this
Part as being unfit for human habitation and not capable at reasonable
expense of being rendered so fit, such reasonable allowance as it thinks fit
towards his expense in removing, and it may also pay to any person carrying
on any trade or business in any such dwelling-house or other building, such
10
reasonable allowance as it thinks fit towards the loss which, in its opinion, he
will sustain by reason of the disturbance of his trade or business consequent
on his having to quit the house or building and, in estimating that loss, it shall
have regard to the period for which the premises occupied by him might
reasonably have been expected to be available for the purpose of his trade
or business and the availability of other premises suitable for that purpose.
(2) The Central Authority may also, in cases of special hardship,
pay to the owner of any premises acquired for the purposes of this Part
such sum as it considers fair and reasonable in the circumstances.”
The provision of accommodation to address displacements and payments for relocation and for
disturbance in carrying on any business or trade are aspects which could be incorporated into the
main piece of legislation dealing with the compulsory taking of land i.e. the Land Acquisition (Public
Purposes) Act. To accomplish this however, would require amendment to the existing legislation. It is
also noted that the 1992 amendment following upon the San Jose Farmers case never dealt with the
issue of compensation within a reasonable time.
B. Legal recourse for grievance redressal It is the court system that one ultimately has to turn to for redress. In the case of lands compulsorily
acquired for a public purpose however, the process starts with the “Authorized Officer” who is usually
the Chief Valuer of the Valuation Unit of the Lands and Surveys Department. Where the Chief Valuer
and the person having an interest in land cannot arrive at an agreed compensation, then the matter
has to be referred to a Board of Assessment.
Survey method to measure loss of assets
The rules for assessment of compensation as outlined in section 19 of the Land Acquisition (Public
Purposes) Act (discussed above) are what give guidance to a Board of Assessment in its exercise at
arriving at what is the measure of compensation payable to the landowner for his loss. It is the Board
of assessment which is charged with arriving at total measure of compensation payable.
C. Gaps between Belizean laws and Bank’s resettlement policy
Gaps are evident in the principles outlined in the Bank’s Operation Policies and the laws of Belize
however some of the principles though not mandated in the laws are followed. For example, land
acquisition and is always minimized and this is principally due to acquisition costs, as the Constitution
and the Land Acquisition Act require that market value be paid for lands compulsorily acquired. Also,
the Land Acquisition Act does not limit compensation to only persons having good or proper
documentary title; an occupier, which can be a person in adverse possession, is entitled to
compensation. Land for land is also the preferred option in Belize to deal with compensation for
11
reasons having to do with the limited annual budgetary allocation to meet claims for compensation
and the fact that the government is still a large landowner.
Furthermore, the WB Resettlement Policy is supplementary to the provision of domestic legislation related to land acquisition and displacement. The domestic law is clear in terms of the State’s eminent domain and this sufficiently provided for. In terms of consultation, the local contemplates reasonable notice for actions that may adversely affect property owners. The WB policy augments this by outlining specific steps that must be taken in consulting affected persons. The WB policy envisions greater participation of community members especially affected persons in this regard. Similarly, the steps for compensating owners whose lands have been compulsorily acquired are outlined. Other properties such as crops and fences are also addressed. While the valuation process is not specified, the Chief Engineer is permitted to negotiate with affected person. No compensation is contemplated by both local law and WB Policy for persons who do not have legal entitlements. The WB Policy however augments this from a humanitarian perspective and makes provisions for the relocation assistance to be provided in order to minimize injuries to the livelihoods of persons and even improve them where possible. In terms of grievance redress, the relevant laws provide for access to local Courts to resolve claims and other forms of grievance. In practice, the Government Ministries attempts to administratively address issues arising from projects before matters are taken to Court. This good practice will be further enhanced by establishing a more formal administrative grievance redressal mechanism (GRM) under the project. Access to Courts and Office of the Ombudsman will still be an available avenue to aggrieved members of the public and is included in the GRM. The following presents a comparative summary of domestic legal provisions for land acquisition in
relation to the involuntary resettlement policy of the World Bank (Source: Valentino Shal, IRPF,
BCRIP).
Comparison of Local Law and Bank Policy
Domestic Legal Provisions Bank Policy Requirements Bridging Measures
Land Acquisition
Addresses compulsory acquisition of land.
Covers involuntary taking of land resulting in 1)relocation, or loss of shelter, 2)loss of assets or access to assets; or 3) loss of income sources or means of livelihood, whether or not affected persons must move to another location.
Compulsory land acquisition will be based on provision of the laws of Belize, WB Policy 4.12 and this Framework. GOB policy and practice is that legal acquisition is very often avoided. If unavoidable, compulsory acquisition will be through the participatory process outlined in this Framework. This is to ensure that affected persons are provided with adequate level support.
Consultation
12
Publication of declaration in two issues of the Gazette in six weeks intervals.
Land vested absolutely in the Crown at second publication
Informed displaced persons about their options and rights pertaining to resettlement.
Consult, offer choices, and provide technically and economically feasible resettlement alternatives.
Provide timely and relevant information and offer opportunities to participate in planning, implementing, and monitoring resettlement.
Affected persons allowed under law to make presentations to the responsible government agency on impacts and injuries suffered. For the BCRIP community level consultations will be carried out prior to inform affected communities on the nature of the project and measures on addressing resettlement, compensation and grievance redress. Affected persons will be consulted on options and rights pertaining to resettlement as per WB OP 4.12. Legal process to compulsorily acquire land will also be followed
Compensation and Benefits
Open market value of land at the time of acquisition.
Alternative practice is to provide land as replacement for land acquired.
Compensation value determined by a Board of Assessment.
Claim must be made within 12 months
Prompt and effective compensation at full “replacement cost” for losses of assets attributable directly to the project.
Provide assistance (such as moving allowance) during relocation.
Payment of cash compensation for lost assets where appropriate.
Provide residential housing, or housing sites, or, as required, agricultural sites for
Local allows for full market value of land to be given to property owner according to specific guidelines. This will be supplemented by provisions of the WB OP 4.12 to ensure full compliance with Policy requirement to provide compensation at full “replacement cost.”
Relocation assistance will be provided for those who are occupying/
13
which a combination of productive potential, locational advantages, and other factors is at least equivalent to the advantages of the old site.
Offer support after displacement, for a transition period.
Provide with developmental assistance in addition to compensation measures such as land preparation, credit facilities, training, or job opportunities.
Provide infrastructure and public services necessary to improve, restore and maintain accessibility and levels of service.
encroaching on road reserves.
Loss of other assets will be compensated at full replacement cost.
Loss of means of livelihood as a direct consequence of project will be compensated for.
Affected people losing property and/or being physically resettled will be provided options between cash and in-kind compensation.
Eligibility
Private lands that fall within the provisions of the General Registry Act, Registry Land Act, Law of Property Act.
Customary land tenure.
Interest acquired through adverse possession (squatting).
Person having the “ostensible possession or enjoyment of the rents and profit” until the contrary is proved.
Those who have formal legal rights to land (including customary and traditional rights recognized under the laws of the country).
Those who do not have formal legal rights but have a claim to such land or assets – provided that such claims are recognized by law or become recognized through a process identified in the resettlement plan.
Those who have no recognizable legal right or claim to the land they are occupying.
Local law and policy are similar in this instance as legal entitlements are fully recognized. For legal property owners with lost assets, they will be compensated accordingly.
Displaced persons who have no recognizable legal right or claim to the land they are occupying will be provided with resettlement assistance in lieu of compensation for the land they occupy, and other assistance, as necessary, to achieve the objectives of WB
14
OP 4.12. Furthermore, all persons are provided compensation for loss of assets other than land.
Persons who encroach on the area after the cut-off date are not entitled to compensation or any other form of resettlement assistance.
Resettlement and Costs
Compensation for land compulsory and other properties near roads acquired allowed.
Other relocation assistance not provided for.
Included in the total costs of the project and part of resettlement plan.
Land acquisition and compensation costs (monetary and in-kind) will be covered by the Government of Belize and other resettlement costs to be covered under the project.
Grievance Redress
Judicial System
Office of the Ombudsman
Establish appropriate and accessible grievance mechanisms.
Formal judicial process also an option under the Project.
Grievance redress mechanism will be developed for the project in addition to national judicial and grievance redress process being open and available to all aggrieved parties.
PREPARATION OF INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLANS
TIMING
Project implementation will begin with a detailed assessment of the six target sites to determine the
land tenure situation and incursions into the protected areas. Furthermore, the number and exact
location of persons/families to be affected by project activities and their current use of forest
resources/land will be identified through completion of a census.
15
The assessment will also include the development of an action plan to identify options for addressing
land tenure issues and incursions into the protected areas. Taking these recommendations into
consideration, the Government will need to make a decision on whether it will, during implementation
of the project pursue land acquisition for persons holding title lands within the PA boundaries and
resettlement of persons who currently have farming or other livelihood activities within protected
areas. If it is determined that lands will be acquired to maintain PA boundaries and or persons
conducting farming or other livelihood activities will be relocated, the PMU, with the assistance of
consultants with prepare and implement action plans to address direct economic and social impacts.
This is required only when these impact result from (a) involuntary taking of land resulting in (i)
relocation or loss of shelter; (ii) loss of assets or access to assets; or (iii) loss of income sources or
means of livelihood, whether or not the affected persons must move to another location; or (b) the
involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse
impacts on the livelihoods of the displaced persons. These impacts are covered by the Livelihood
Restoration Framework (also known as Process Framework).
Action Plans should be prepared as early in the process as possible to ensure that land is acquired and
social and economic conditions are restored prior to commencement of project activities which include
delineation and enforcement of PA boundaries.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, DEGREE OF IMPACT AND ENTITLEMENTS
1. Eligibility
In order to be a beneficiary of an Action Plan, all three of the following eligibility criteria must be met:
To live in or own a property or carry out a productive business on the land that will be acquired by the Govt. of Belize; and
To be a title holder, lease holder, use-rights holder or squatter;
To be registered in the social assessment census.
Regarding tenancy, although an AP’s tenancy status will not eliminate their right to be an Action Plan
beneficiary, it will determine their entitlements. Persons with legal titles or claims are entitled to
compensation for the land they lose, and other assistance in accordance (see OP 4.12, paragraph 6),
while those persons who have no recognizable legal right or claim are provided resettlement
assistance in lieu of compensation for the land they occupy, and other assistance, as necessary, to
achieve the objectives set out in this framework, if they occupy the project area prior to a cut-off date
established by the Government of Belize. Persons who encroach on the area after the cut-off date
are not entitled to compensation or any other form of resettlement assistance. All Action Plan
beneficiaries are provided compensation for loss of assets other than land.
2. Entitlements according to degree of impact
The entitlement policy aims to enable AP to replace the assets they have lost on account of the
project, to recover and to improve upon their pre-project living standards within the shortest possible
16
time. In general, the resettlement & rehabilitation (R&R) package would consist of (a) provision for
replacement assets or its cash equivalent, where replacement is not feasible; (b) rehabilitation grants
to compensate for temporary disruption in life and economic activities; (c) either employment or
training, capital and enterprise support for income restoration in case of loss of livelihoods, and (d)
provision for replacement of community facilities and services for affected communities.
Although land acquisition may not be required as a result of project activities, if GOB decides to
pursue land acquisition this process will be governed by laws of Belize with particular attention to
bridging the identified gaps with the World Bank OP 4.12, as identified above.
AP losing land may be entitled to the following types of compensation and rehabilitation measures:
(a) For the majority of schemes, the land will be reallocated in the immediate vicinity. According to
the Land Administration Law, in situations where land reallocation is not possible, the AP will be paid
a maximum compensation and resettlement subsidy equivalent to the market value of the land.
(b) If land compensation and resettlement subsidies paid are still insufficient to help the AP needing
resettlement to maintain their original living standards, the resettlement subsidies may be increased
upon approval by the Minister of Natural Resources or Area Representatives.
(c) AP will be compensated for the loss of standing crops, fruit or industrial trees, as well as any fixed
assets at market prices.
AP losing shelter and auxiliary structures will be entitled to the following compensation and
rehabilitation measures:
(a) AP whose houses are being acquired will be provided replacement housing within easy
communing distance of their existing homes, and the new housing will be equal size/quality of the
house lost;
(b) AP will be provided with compensation at full replacement value, without any deduction for
depreciation, for any structures and fixed assets affected by the components;
(c) A pre-determined dislocation allowance according to the prevailing rates of the project areas will
also be provided.
AP losing business will be entitled to the following compensation and rehabilitation measures:
(a) The mechanism for compensation loss of business will be: (i) the provision of alternative business
site of equal size and accessibility to customers, satisfactory to the AP; (ii) cash compensation to the
owner for lost business structure reflecting full replacement cost of the structures, without depreciation
and the cost of transfer; and (iii) cash compensation for the loss of income during the transition period.
(b) AP will also be provided compensation at full replacement cost, without depreciation for any other
fixed assets affected by resettlement.
CONTENT
The Action Plan will, at minimum, include the following components:
17
1. Description of the specific activities under the project that may require, together with the different
means used to obtain this land;
2. A census of persons to affected/displaced by resettlement due to activities not permitted in
protected area, involuntary land acquisition including an inventory of lost assets and valuation of
these, and socio-economic data;
3. Description of the compensation and other resettlement assistance to be provided;
4. Description of the consultations with affected/displaced persons about acceptable alternatives;
5. Institutional responsibility for implementation and procedures for grievance redress;
6. Arrangements for monitoring and implementation; and
7. A time-bound implementation plan and budget.
Verifiable Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation Implementation of RAPs.
Monitoring Evaluation
Percentage of individuals selecting cash
or a combination of cash and in-kind
compensation
Proposed use of payments
Payment of compensation to APs in
various categories
Conformance to compensation policies
described in the RAP
Number of grievances
Timeliness and quality of decisions made on
grievances
Delivery of technical assistance,
relocation, payment of transitional
subsistence and moving allowances
Facilitation of access to technical and
development assistance and transitional
allowances
Delivery of income restoration and
development assistance
Ability of individuals and households to
restore sources of income
18
Public information dissemination and
consultation procedures
Timeliness, quality, and effectiveness of
consultation and information disclosure
Completion dates of the RAP activities Actual completion of resettlement activities
compared with the RAP time schedule
PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE During the preparation phase and upon the identification of the activities that may necessitate IR,
public meetings should be held in the areas where resettlement and displacement may take place to
introduce to the affected communities, and other primary stakeholders, resettlement policies and
procedures. Since the APs may be eligible to benefit from the project activities, information will be
given to them and other stakeholders on:
Project components
Project impacts
APs’ legal rights and entitlements
Compensation policies
Resettlement activities
Grievance and redress Mechanism
Implementation schedule
Public consultation and disclosure of information
Organizational responsibilities
Following the preliminary introductory meeting, the APs will be again consulted during the process of
conducting the socio-economic survey where they will be interviewed and asked to present their
ideas, concerns, and preferences on issue regarding land acquisition and replacement, resettlement
sites, compensation, and income restoration measures.
The APs should be involved in the actual formulation of different options in initial assessment or target
sites in addition to the RAP. After the finalization of the RAP it shall be publicly disclosed to all APs
and other relevant stakeholders in a meeting. The stakeholders’ points of views will be taken into
consideration upon the actual implementation of the RAP. The APs will be given a chance to express
their concerns with the implementation of the RAP through the grievances and redress mechanism
mentioned above. It will be amongst the main objectives of the monitoring and evaluation phase to
ascertain that the APs complaints have been addressed and that they have been informed about the
organizational procedures for resettlement throughout the entire process.
Grievance Redress Mechanisms A grievance mechanism should be devised in order for the APs to be able to voice their concerns,
complaints, or dissatisfaction with any part of the compensation process and seek redress for
activities directly implemented by the Government of Belize. Simply, complaints can be made
concerning compensation entitlement, types and levels of compensation, compensation policy,
acquisition / destruction of land or assets, resettlement, or development or transitional assistance.
Grievance redress will be approached both proactively and reactively:
19
Proactive approach:
b) Clarification of criteria for eligibility for assistance under the RPF framework
c) Establishing a local mediation committee (made up of community leaders, people assembly
members, religious persons etc), to review any grievances that may result.
Reactive approach:
a) Settle disputes amicably b) Since resettlement will be addressed directly by the Government; however, the PMU may
assist in settlement of disputes in target sites if called upon. Therefore, if disputes arise that is requested to be settled through support from the project, they will be documented by the PMU and brought to the attention of the Project Steering Committee (PSC). The PSC will then determine if the dispute can be settled directly or if it is necessary to call upon the local mediation committee to review the grievance.
c) If compensation-related disputes cannot be solved at the local level, they will follow additional tiers of appeal as described below:
Tiers of
Grievance
Redressal
Mechanisms
Responsible party Mechanism Timeframe
to address
grievance
First tier Project Management Unit in
consultation with Project
Steering Committee to
address dispute and/or
determine line of action
Oral or written
grievance (free of
cost)
1 week
Second tier Local authorities in
consultation with local level
mediation committee
Written grievance
(free of cost)
2 week
Third tier
Land Valuation Unit Oral or written
grievance (free of
cost)
3 weeks
Fourth tier
Board of Assessment Case submission
(free of cost)
3 weeks
Fifth tier Ombudsman Case submission 3 weeks
20
(free of cost)
Sixth tier Judicial system Contracting a
lawyer (high cost)
or use of Solicitor
General’s Office
Lengthy process
and long delays (to
be avoided by First
through Third tier
mechanisms)
Assistance for
aggrieved
persons
belonging to
vulnerable
groups for
accessing
legalrecourse.
Legal Aid Office in Belize
City.
List of other pro bono
lawyers in Belize will be
provided for low-income
population who cannot
afford legal counsel.
Low cost option Lengthy process
and long (to be
avoided by First
through Third tier
mechanisms)
It is important that these tiers be established prior to the implementation of any RAPs. Hence, the
mediation mechanisms should be available to cater for claims, disputes and grievances at this early
stage.
Institutional arrangements and sources of funding
The following institutions share the responsibility of planning and implementing the abbreviated
involuntary resettlement plans that may be triggered concurrently with implementation of the project.
Their roles and responsibilities are as follows:
Institution Responsibilities
Source of funding
Project Management
Unit (NPAS, MFFSD)
with support of
Departments of
Environment and
Forestry
1. Support drafting of Terms of Reference for Socioeconomic Study, Census and Physical survey and monitor/ support implementation of activities
2. Support preparation action plans and required consultation processes
3. Disclosure of Action Plans on official GOB website
Approved budget
Project Steering
Committee
(PSC)/Technical
Advisory Committee
1. Review and approval of Terms of Reference for Socioeconomic Study, Census and Physical surveys
2. Facilitate GOB in its decision making process to determine if land acquisition and or resettlement will
Approved budget
21
(TAC) occur as a result of project activities; 3. Review and approve action plans; 4. Monitor implementation of PMU’s
enforcement of framework
Lands Valuation Unit,
Lands and Surveys
Department
Calculation of replacement cost of land
and assets to be acquired
Department budget
Board of Assessment
(i) the Chief Justice or
a judge of the
Supreme Court who
shall be the Chairman
of the Board; (ii) a
member (other than a
public officer)
appointed by the
minister responsible
for lands; and (iii) a
member nominated
by the landowner.
The Board holds a public inquiry and
follows the civil procedure rules of the
Supreme Court with respect to the
conduct of the inquiry. At the
conclusion of the inquiry, the Board
decides on the amount of
compensation and the apportionment
No additional budget
National Ombudsman Provide a check on government
activity in the interests of the citizen,
and to oversee the investigation of
complaints of improper government
activity against the citizen. If the
Ombudsman finds an appeal to be
substantiated, an Ombudsman report
is published making recommendations
for change
Own budget
Civil society
organizations and/or
university
External monitoring of the plan Own funding
Project affected
people
1. Collaborate with socioeconomic survey, census and other studies
2. Participation in consultations in good faith
---
22
Although the primary responsibility for implementation of the respective project components lies with
the regulatory agencies, the oversight responsibility shall rest with the PMU and the PSC.
The PMU is only responsible for the project plan and implementation. The PMU is also responsible for
ensuring compliance with environmental and social safeguards. However, the PMU can provide
support to the GOB process for resettlement in or around target protected areas with the approval of
the PSC and the World Bank. In addition, land management authority should review the scope,
quantity of land acquisition, carry on land acquisition registering, handling land acquisition procedures
and supervise compensation. The costs associated with mitigation of adverse social impacts on
affected people, such as relocation of affected persons will be met by the Government with prior
approval of the Cabinet.
23
Annex 1: Map of Chiquibul Forest and Adjacent Communities
Source: Friends for Conservation & Development
24
Annex 2: Stakeholder Consultations
1.1 Inception Workshop
Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable DevelopmentManagement and Protection of
Key Biodiversity Areas Project Preparation Grant
Inception Workshop
List of Participants
Belmopan Hotel
November 23rd, 2012
Name of Participant Organization/Department
Ricardo Thompson MNRA
DeadraHaylock Consultant
Janet Gibson WCS
Nayari Diaz-Perez PACT
Angela Usher PACT
Arnoldo Melendez F.C.D
Raphael Manzanero F.C.D
Victoria Cawich F.D
Yvette Alonzo GIZ- Selva Maya
Martin Alegria DOE
Reynold Cal Runaway Creek Nature Preserve
LeonelRequena GEFSGP/ COMPACT
Leonide Sosa DOE
Wiezman Pat MFFSD
Steven Reneau B.W.B/A.S.F
Aldo Cansino DOE
Jorge Franco DOE
Anthony Mai DOE
IsaisMajil Fisheries Department
Tanya Santos FD
Roan Mcnab WCS
Amanda Acosta Belize Audubon
Paul Walker wild tracks
Cecy Castillo UB
Jan Meerman Belize Tropical Foundation Studies
Oswaldo Sabido Consultant
Rasheda Garcia FD
Saul Cruz FD
25
Name of Participant
Organization/Department
Celi Cho DOE
Dwight Montero STACA
Valdemar Andrade Ministry of Tourism & Culture
Elma Kay ERI-UB
Maarten Hofman Ya'axché
Emily Aldana Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
Jose Perez APAMO
Arlene Maheia-Young NPAS
Rebecca Foster PANTHERA
Derric Chan Friends for Conservation and Development
Ian Morrison Enviroplan/Consultant
Marion Cayetano Development /Consultant
Inception Workshop Notes
The overall purpose of the Inception Workshop was to reach out the relevant stakeholders so they could get
involved in the project preparation process. Among others, this would allow to ensure the complementarities
with other relevant initiatives/projects.2
To this end, background materials were sent to the invitees including the draft agenda, a project overview report,
and the primary report describing and documenting the key biodiversity areas in Belize3.
The workshop was conducted by the consulting team. After introductions, presentations were made regarding
the project objectives and beneficiaries. Subsequently the three components were outlined with the purpose of
opening up discussions on the substantive themes. Then subgroups were established led by the consultants and
participant volunteers. Component 1 and 2 were linked together as several themes run across them. Component
3 run on its own. A recorder documented input by participants, and the results follow. The following Agenda
was followed.
Agenda:
8:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Registration of workshop participants
9: 00 a.m. - 9: 15 a.m. Welcome and Introductions
9: 15 a.m. - 9: 25 a.m. Workshop objectives
9: 25 a.m. - 9:45 a.m. Overview of Project objectives, outcomes and outputs
9: 45 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. Project Preparation Grant Activities
10:00 a.m.- 10: 15 a.m. BREAK
10:15 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. Activity 1: break out groups (3) to provide feedback on project components, outputs and
outcome
11: 00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Presentations of results of Activity 1
12: 00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. LUNCH
2As additional workshops are anticipated, it is important to document the results of the Inception Workshop
3Meerman, J. 2007. Establishing a Baseline to Monitor Species and Key Biodiversity Areas in Belize. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. Unpublished report. 15 pp.
26
1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. Activity 2
2:00 p.m. - 2: 50 p.m. Wrap-up discussion
2: 50 p.m.- 3:00 p.m. Closing remarks
Subgroup Topic 1: Component 1: Supporting Forest Protection and Sustainable Forest Management
Activities in Key Biodiversity Areas. Component 2: Promoting Effective Management of Key Biodiversity
Areas (KBAs)
The members of the Subgroup considered it useful to discuss the topic in three sub-topics in order to share their
perceptions and expectations.
Sub Topic: Status and On-going Activities in the KBAs
A. Forest Protection
Major issues:
Incursions for extraction especially xate but also wildlife
Illegal activities from Belizeans in Forest Reserves - agriculture; rosewood and nargusta illegal logging;
instructed and supervised in the field by Chinese companies [Rather than singling out nationalities maybe
we could use the legal term alien?] Among other reasons, Belize, Guatemala, and many others countries are
members countries of international organizations. They avoid singling out countries unless the evidence has
been established.
Medina Bank / Deep River facing same issue
Chiquibul - similar issues with transboundary activities; illegal panning for gold; looting of Mayan sites;
poaching - macaws and other species
Vaca Forest Reserve - local and Guatemalan illegal logging [alien enterprises?]
Belizeans public knows Chiquibul is under siege; FCD has brought the figures;
Now there is new evidence of erosion of genetic pool of timber species
Looking at collaborative effort with CONAP and others
National Security Issue is rolled into this for all PA into Western Border
Chiquibul, El Pilar, Vaca, Deep River situation a little different from North
we cannot stop the situation completely which is why we are looking for ways to containing it
Currently , police and military cooperation with PA managers need special forces
Challenges and what is needed-
There is limited man power even with collaboration from other agencies such as police and BDF
Need more conservation posts for Chiquibul area - two outstanding Valentin and one for Columbia need
specialized equipment and training apart from man power; these posts important in curbing illegal
agriculture
Place an authority on the ground
People change their way of operating illegally
Conflict between co-managers on the ground. Immunities because enforcement and education being
done by same so this project can help to work out a new system in which regulatory agency is strengthened
but we can also look at formation of NGO or entity just tasked with enforcement
Forest Governance issues go wider than just enforcement and need to analyze this especially greater
transparency
Lack of resources at regulatory agency but also regulations need to be amended to have higher penalties;
need more education of laws...people are not aware....only 10% of 1% of population interviewed do not
know who is responsible for enforcement
27
Need to empower regulatory agency and take a good look at how co-managers function; need strategies for
stewardship/ownership
FD needs to understand that situation has become so complicated; very unlikely that they will ever have the
resources...we can look at a GoB/NGO model as in Honduras; one day we might even move to Community
Governance e.g. Local Village Councils; need more decentralization
If Project can do economic valuation? - communicate value of PAs maybe to encourage politicians to
budget more for PA protection and management; just need to educate public on revenue, jobs etc. that PAs
bring and sensitize people on this...don't need to do fancy economic valuation
Strategic for GoB to enter into Landscape Management Program/Strategies at Vaca to promote stewardship
- need pilots
Need long term streams to sustain Management of the system/ business models
Working with judges and police to make sure prosecution is effective and higher fines; working with
communities...some NGOs deal more with engagement of communities and others more with enforcement;
signing contracts with communities so they become stewards
SMART and MIST to track if enforcement is effective - software for testing
Things that project can do:
Strengthening of FD is a necessary action but this is not sufficient - needs to take a leadership and
coordination role; needs to have a community relationship that commands respect; need a decentralized
system; FD needs to coordinate partnerships with NGOs etc. to be effective; extension with training,
equipment and support from the PACT; need to legally bestow power on NGOs to do enforcement; need
legislative reform; clarification of role of FD because they have a key role in enforcement
Good communication and outreach to public, prosecutors etc. regarding the law but also value of PAs
legislative reform to ensure transparency and modify fines etc
research on all forest species and sustainable extraction levels
Target areas : Columbia and Bladen; Maya Mtn North Forest Reserve and TIDE Private Lands
B. Sustainable Forest Management
Things that the project can do:
Licensing for logging/ extraction of forest products needs to be looked at including monitoring
number of short term licenses were minimal and process of applying was harder so cut down from 200 to 50
and in forest reserves only long term licenses; fear that we are causing more illegal activity; checkpoints
work
Need to also look at system for hunting permits etc., hunting seasons....200,000 animals being hunted
annually for consumption; 7% of meat consumption is from game meat; need to take a look at the law and
how these are enforced; we tend to prosecute small guys in villages rather than the big guys...enforcement
across the board....transparency
Need research - need research on game animals not just charismatic species
Need to remove discretionary power from Ministers e.g. Living Aquatic Resources Act
Need to look at non timber forest products and how these can sustain communities
C. Promoting Effective Management of KBAs
Things that project can do:
Management Effectiveness Training but also Biodiversity Monitoring (Biodiversity Monitoring and
National Strategy for Long term Forest Monitoring need to be implemented - biodiversity monitoring is big
gap) and need for direct measurement of how effective we have been in stabilizing or reducing illegal
activities e.g. national patrol information system
Need to look at limits of acceptable change
28
Need to look at biodiversity integrity
For Sustainability:
Need linkage with Private Sector needed; need to look at incentives so people are encouraged to do things
the right way
Need business development support for communities; alternative livelihoods; community approach is
key...NGOs need to be working themselves out of a job by creating community stewardship....sustainability
needs to be for PA not NGO
Need to look at alternative uses - using it to protected it e.g. via tourism or even oil extraction with proper
abatement measures
Need consolidation - use resources wisely and avoid duplication of resources; this is key as part of
sustainability
Need institutionalized systems - for training, monitoring and research, licenses
Need good land management - implementation of Sustainable Land Use Policy and need a plan; more
sustainable agriculture so need Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development to work closely
with Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture
Subgroup Topic 2: Component 3. Institutional Strengthening & Capacity Building for Enhanced
Enforcement of Environmental Regulations
The members of the Subgroup considered it useful to discuss the topic focalizing on specific expected outputs
and associated options or suggestions.
A functional Departmental Steering Committee on conservation to oversee the process established
o Two models were suggested
TOR for NEAC expanded to include additional responsibilities to meet the above
expected outcome.
A committee parallel to the NEAC be established but with the legislated inclusion of
only governmental department s but with the power to call on stakeholders (NGOs,
CBOs) depending on the issue
Staff in the key agencies of the Government of Belize, charged with safeguarding Belize’s natural
resources, are trained and equipped with the necessary assessment and compliance monitoring tools
(e.g., Forest Department, Department of Environment, Geology and Petroleum, Lands and Survey,
Fisheries Department, Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute, Belize Agricultural Health
Authority, etc.).
o Methodology for “rapid environmental assessment” developed to make training easier for
trainers and trainees
Partnerships with the private sector for monitoring of natural resource use improved
o Ongoing training extended to the private sector players to ensure that the process is understood
and assistance effective
Collaboration with civil society in natural resource management strengthened.
o Funding current available from PACT and NPAS project for local NGO’s, that do not meet
criteria, to build capacity (do not need to be addressed through this project)
Forest licensing mechanisms that foster the use of forests in a sustainable manner improved
o This output is better served under Components 1 or 2 for harmonization
Co-management agreements for PAs modernized and enhanced.
o Co-management recently signed but ongoing review needed for modernization but not an
immediate priority
29
Applications designed to automate workflows and registries (including KBAs, PAs, and forest licensing,
among others) and (e.g., for tracking of reports and provision of timely feedback about agency response)
developed and in use.
o Training for people based on the function of the agency
Specialized training provided to agency staff on the use of ICT communication tools developed
o Alternative training methods for CBO to ensure valuable contribution to database taking into
consideration resource and skills availability.
o Coordinate with ongoing initiatives – sustainable forest management (SFM), National Spatial
Data Infrastructure (NSDI), etc.
EIA preparers’ certification program for enhanced environmental compliance established under the
DOE
o Qualitative and quantitative criteria established for address structure, grammar, referencing,
guidelines for presentation and unification of impacts, mitigation and monitoring across reports
o Methodologies for the determination of impacts
o Review and modification of existing certification programmes locally and regional as a starting
point
o Update of EIA preparers guidelines
Clear TORs for the NEAC strengthened
o Elaborate on roles and functions
o Preparation of an operations manual
The NEAC’s autonomy and transparency of procedures increased by regular updates and publication of
the Committee’s decisions (on publicly accessible websites)
o Debriefing on ECP at the community level
o Communities involved in monitoring
o Public press release of NEAC decisions
The discretionary power of the Minister is removed from the EPA and the EIA Regulations
o This output was addressed in the 2007 EIA amendment regulations with the inclusion of a
tribunal but not the same for forestry and fisheries
Other Issues:
Review of EIA to determine if Socio-economic aspects are being properly addressed in EIA or should
be removed to be addressed elsewhere
Develop comprehensive environmental quality monitoring procedure and compilation of EIA report
data to develop data base
The 2005 NPASP reviewed and updated with relevant climate change issues
o Better to address this in component 2
o Ongoing initiatives (Ann Gordon Climate Change Office and CCCCC)
Observations from the Inception Stakeholder Workshop
Structure of the Workshop was geared at offering an opportunity for the participants to offer their views and
submit interventions that would guide the development of the PPG and on to the final ProDoc.
Observations:
The interventions offered by participants were mostly given during the breakout sessions.
Participants appeared knowledgeable and willing to offer their technical knowledge and experiences
gained from their individual course of professional work either as public service technicians or
managers of protected areas
30
The attitude was fairly positive but it was evident from one-on-one comments the project appeared
ambitious and there existed an uncertainty as to whether its implementation timeframe would allow for
goals to be achieved. Particularly, the project outcome of removal of Ministerial discretion drew many
sighs, smiles indicating a belief that the goal was a bit reaching considering Belize’s political
environment.
The plenary session was not robust as there were no interventions outside what was already offered in
the breakout sessions.
It can be surmised that while the attitudes were positive there existed a bit apprehensiveness on the part of the
few protected areas managers and environmental/conservation technicians that attended as they seemed to want
to wait to see what would come out of the consultancy exercise yielding a final project document.
The structure of the workshop and its activities did not offer much opportunity to test behaviours or attitudes. It
was mostly left to be derived from an observation basis.
Contributions from the Stakeholder Representatives that Discussed Component 3 at the Inception Workshop
held on November 23rd, 2012
Expected Outcomes Expected Outputs Comments/Suggestions
3.1 Enhanced
coordination
among
Government
agencies charged
with conservation
3.1.1 A functional
Departmental
Steering Committee
on conservation
established
Two models suggested
i. TOR for NEAC expanded to include additional
responsibilities to meet the outcome of 3.1.
ii. A committee parallel to the NEAC be established
but with the legislated inclusion of only
governmental departments but with the power to
call on stakeholders (NGOs, CBOs) depending on
the issue
3.2.Strengthened
capacity for
compliance
monitoring and
enforcement of key
agencies
responsible for
environment
3.2.1 Staff in key
agencies trained and
equiped with better
assessment and
compliance
monitoring tools and
capacities
Methodology for “rapid environmental assessment”
developed to make training easier for trainers and
trainees
3.2.2 Partnerships
with the private
sector for monitoring
of natural resource
use improved
Ongoing training extended to the private sector
players to ensure that the process is understood and
assistance effective
31
Expected Outcomes Expected Outputs Comments/Suggestions
3.2.3 Collaboration
with civil society in
natural resource
management
strengthened
Funding currently available from PACT and NPAS
project for local NGO’s, that do not meet criteria, to
build capacity (do not need to be addressed through
the Project)
3.2.4 Forest licensing
mechanisms that
foster the use of
forests in a
sustainable manner
This output is better served under Components 1 or 2
for harmonization
3.2.5 Co-management
agreements for PAs
modernized and
enhanced
Co-management recently signed but ongoing review
needed for modernization, yet not as an immediate
priority
3.3 Enhanced
effectiveness of the
Environmental
Impact Assessment
(EIA) System
3.3.1 . EIA
certification program
for enhanced
environmental
compliance
established
Qualitative and quantitative criteria established to
address structure, grammar, referencing, guidelines
for presentation and unification of impacts,
mitigation and monitoring across reports
Methodologies for the determination of impacts
Review and modification of existing certification
programmes locally and regionally as a starting
point
Update of EIA preparers’ guidelines
3.4 Climate Change
mitigation and
resilience
considerations
mainstreamed into
the National
Protected Areas
System Plan
(NPASP)
3.4.1 The 2005
NPASP to capture
relevant climate
change issues
reviewed and updated
Better to address this under Component 2
Need to consider ongoing initiatives such as the Ann
Gordon Climate Change Office and CCCCC
The new frontier is resulting in a shift of the traditional norms and practices in the quest to earning a livelihood
for a basic standard of living or to meet commercial demands. With the reduction in the easy access to some raw
materials, the methods for extraction are becoming more abrasive, with less regards for the environment and in
some instances highly exploitative, registering low on the sustainability gauge. Therefore, new approaches that
requires shift in the paradigm for those that have the responsibility for natural resource safeguard for present and
future generation to have long term benefits.
Following the stakeholders workshop the team of consultants carries out a one week site visit in the north, west
and south of the country. The objective of the exercise was to obtain a better understanding of the environmental
32
issues, the implication of the environmental act, environmental protection regulations and the extent of their
engagement with the Department of the Environment, Forest Department, Fisheries Department, Geology and
Petroleum Department, Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute (CZMAI), Belize Agriculture Health
Authority (BAHA). The information will be used increase the understanding of the roles of the regulatory
agencies in an effort to make it easier to implement environmental protection measures during project
implementation and operation.
Sites for visit were selected based on location and land tenure, management and community status to gather as
much knowledge on a variety of issues. Areas in the north and west included the largest private and public land
holdings, while area in the south captured smaller private and public land holdings in as areas where two
indigenous groups exist, lower employment opportunities and co-management agreements with the government
of Belize.
The table below summarizes the comments and concerns from some of the stakeholders participated during in
the information sharing sessions.
Date Visited Location Organization/Person Comments/Observations
Fri. November 23, 2012 Mon. Nov 26, 2012 - Mon. Nov, 26, 2012 -
Belmopan Toledo Sundaywood Village CriqueSarco Village TIDE’s Office
Department of the Environment Martin Alegria (Chief Environmental Officer) Mateo Tosh, Alcalde Juan Ch’oc, Chairman Toledo Institute for Development and the Environment (TIDE) -Salim Chan, Marine Manager James Lord, Development Director (Port Honduras
CEO is fully aware of the project activities and benefits and indicated that the preference would be to concentrate on converting all files to electronic data. No emphasis of scientific data compilation for decision making, at this point. Environmental awareness is through engagement with SATIIM. No direct engagement with the DOE Environmental awareness is through engagement of SATIIM. No direct engagement with the DOE
33
Date Visited Location Organization/Person Comments/Observations
Tues. Nov 27, 2012 Tues. Nov 27, 2012 Wed. Nov 28, 2012 Thurs. Nov 29, 2012
YCT’s Office SATIIM’s Office Cayo District Orange Walk District San Filipe
Marine Reserve, Paynes Creek National Park, TIDE Private Protected Lands along Rio Grande River) Ya’axché Conservation Trust (YCT), Bladen Nature Reserve and Golden Stream Corridor Preserve - Christina Garcia, Executive Director; Lee McLoughlin, Protected Areas Manager; Gail Stott, Botanist; Tom Pienkowski, Head Development Officer Sarstoon and Temash Institute for Indigenous Management (SATIIM), Sarstoon-Temash National Park (STNP) – Gregory Ch’oc, Executive Director Friends for Conservation and Development, Chiquibul National Park - Rafael Manzanero, Executive Director
Environment protection is through their environmental conservation initiatives. Director indicated that need did not arise to directly engage the DOE in terms of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and pollution regulations Have not engaged the DOE directly in the pass for guidance on environmental protection. EP is done intuitively through conservation advocacy and alternative livelihoods programmes. Currently have a court case pending with the GOB/DOE Similar to Ya’axché National issues related to incursion, encroachment and poaching. Extraction of NTFP. Remoteness and limited resources increase difficulties and present more challenging to protect and preserve. Promoting and encouraging alternative livelihoods through farming. Engaging boarding Guatemalan
34
Date Visited Location Organization/Person Comments/Observations
Thurs. Nov 29, 2012 Thurs. Nov 29, 2012 Fri. Nov. 30, 2012
La Milpa Field Station Gallon Jug Belmopan
Mr. Peralta (Principal, San Filipe R.C. Primary School) Programme for Belize, La Milpa Field Station - BladimirRogrigues, Manager Gallon Jug - Alistair Macpherson, General Manager Department of the Environment, Aldo Cansino, Project Officer
communities by extending invitation to share best practices and low impact techniques by small farmers in Belize. No need for direct engagement with the DOE. Environmental awareness in the primary school is done through cooperation with PFB with trips to PFB managed access area and representatives of PFB visiting the school at least one per year. According to the rep the outreach can be increased to once per term or TT/Y. Outreach and site visits are mainly for STD IV and V classes Carries out environmental friendly and sustainable practices to control pollution in the biosphere in its operation. Include logging and milling of timber, agriculture (coffee, sugar cane and cocao) and pasture and eco-tourism destination through tourist accommodations. Did not explore other spinoff consequences in detail, because of the activities, such as fuel storage, waste management, emissions control. Did not engage the DOE or vise-versa. Provided information on data transfer from manual to digital
35
Date Visited Location Organization/Person Comments/Observations
combining files with GIS maps. Discussion on information dissemination was not directly budgeted but nevertheless has a strategy that focused on radio, school presentations, and public events such as expo’s. GIS analysis was limited since database was being populated. Cooperation with NGO for eyes on the ground promoted as much as possible. Limited consolidation of existing EA’s for development of time series data. Extent of progress needs further evaluation. No cross sector access to database but the National Spatial Data Information (NDSI) should help to address this issue. There are a number of related projects in progress (Ozone depleting substances control, Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) and Strategic Approach to International Chemical Management (SAICM)).
Recommendations
It was clear and evident from the stakeholders’ two forms of projects will be required. The first is type is
institutional development that wills benefits mostly regulatory and licencing agencies. The second field of
projects are geared towards alternatives livelihoods to reduce pressures on KBA’s.
Activities to consider for financing under the first segment includes:
]Institution Capacity and Development Evaluation involving managerial, technical and financial
assessments for managers, technical officers and technicians based on the outcome from diagnosing
36
needs to determine the existing capacity, where training need to be concentrated or the need for increase
in human resources to effectively manage projects.
Certification for EIA preparers that will have an aim of increasing the quality of the EA reports
ICT training for increase efficiency in monitoring and evaluation of impacts. This will help with a
higher level of intervention for corrective measures to be taking at an early stage after conclusion of the
evaluation.
Consolidation of EA report to build scientific database on information collected across the country to
build time series data necessary to predict trends due to development plans. The efforts will help to
develop cumulative impacts that will make it easier for the regulatory agencies to verify information
through the EA process and other sources. The initiative can also be combined with development trends
such as projected population growth and land use (agriculture, tourism, residential, commercial
industrial) that can be used to guide higher decision making helping to meet Horizon 2030 objectives.
These initiatives will require the development of institutional memorandums of understanding that
would help to foster the relationships.
The other segment is the implementation of community based development projects yet to be fully finalized.
These may include those projects that provide alternatives that would prevent project with high impacts on the
natural biodiversity of the KBA’s identified. Possible projects may include:
Alternative livelihoods - such as agro-forestry/ecological farming
Reforestation of abandon milpa
Forest management through controlled burning
Small scale pasture and aquaculture initiatives
Local craft development with residual timber and NTFP
37
1.2 Field Visits Notes
MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS (KBA) PROJECT
FOR MINISTRY OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (MFFSD)
WITH COORDINATING BODY BEING NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS SECRETARIAT (NPAS)
FIELD VISITS
TOLEDO DISTRICT
CRIQUE SARCO AND SUNDAY WOOD VILLAGES
NOVEMBER 26TH
, 2012
In attendance:
Eduardo Quiroga Natural Resources Management Consultant/Team Leader
Jeff Waldon Carbon Accounting Consultant
Ian Morrison Environmental Management Consultant
Marion Cayetano Social Development Consultant
Juan Ch’oc CriqueSarco Village Chairman
Mateo Tosh Sundaywood Village Alcalde
Absent:
DaedraHaylock Communications Consultant
Objectives:
The trip was organized in order to complete the following objectives:
Understand the communities appreciation of protected areas and the key issue areas for the project
Understand the impact the protected areas have on community life and livelihood
Understand the communities interest in alternative livelihood opportunities
Receive a general appreciation of the area and the community life – with some appreciation for cultural
practices, behaviors and attitudes as it relates to natural resources
From the Meeting with the Village Chairman Mr. Juan Ch’oc and Village Alcalde Mr. Mateo Tosh, the
following were evident:
The community does have an appreciation of the SarstoonTemash National Park (STNP) as important
for biodiversity protection.
The residents in the community benefit tangibly when the animals wander outside of the protected areas
boundaries and allow for hunting.
The protected areas manager does not provide livelihood opportunities for residents at this time.
However, the community believes that it should.
There is currently no telecommunications signal from SMART Cell in the area and DigiCell service
does not work in the area at this time. This limits the community ability to participate in any project
intervention that utilizes this technology in the course of the work whether it is geared at
communications, protection issues for the protected area or otherwise
The community believes that the protected area (STNP) should benefit the community’s
livelihood but at this time it does not
It appears to them that foreign nationals have more access to the resources and protected areas
than Belizeans
38
There is heavy illegal logging and hunting by foreign nationals
The availability of alternative livelihoods opportunities could assist greatly with managing
encroachments on the protected areas
Some legal reform can assist alleviating or managing the pressures faced by the protected areas
Wood carving is an ideal alternative livelihood project in CriqueSarco but needs market
development and management.
Any livelihood opportunity identified has to be long term and present real possibilities for
maintaining family life
Environmental awareness is carried out via engagement with SATIIM
FIELD VISITS
PUNTA GORDA, TOLEDO DISTRICT
TIDE, SATIIM, YA’AXCHE
NOVEMBER, 27TH
, 2012
In attendance:
Eduardo Quiroga Natural Resources Management Consultant/Team Leader
Jeff Waldon Carbon Accounting Consultant
Ian Morrison Environmental Management Consultant
Marion Cayetano Social Development Consultant
Salim Chan Marine Manager – TIDE
James Lord Development Director – TIDE
Christina Garcia Executive Director – Ya’axché
Lee McLoughlin Protected Areas Manager – Ya’axché
Gail Stott Botanist – Ya’axché
Tom Pienkowski Head Development Officer – Ya’axché
Gregory Ch’oc Executive Director - SATIIM
Absent:
DaedraHaylock Communications Consultant
Objectives:
The trip was organized in order to complete the following objectives:
General understanding of the area under the protection of the organizations
Scope of Work of the organizations in relation to its protected area and buffer communities
Understand the impacts the buffer communities have on the protected area and vice versa
Understand the organizations’ involvement with the communities either via education projects and/or
livelihood opportunities as well as establishing partnership for the protection of the area
Toledo Institute for Development & the Environment (TIDE) is responsible for the management of the
Port Honduras Marine Reserve, Paynes Creek National Park and TIDE Private Protected Lands along
the Rio Grande River
Ya’axché Conservation Trust (Ya’axché) is responsible for the management of the Bladen Nature
Reserve and Golden Stream Corridor Preserve.
39
Sarstoon and Temash Institute for Indigenous Management (SATIIM) is responsible for the
management of Sarstoon- Temash National Park (STNP)
From the meeting with TIDE, the below is evident:
The forest faces fragmentation pressures
It is believed the forests should provide more alternative livelihood opportunities for residents of the
buffer communities
TIDE manages its forests using the Reef to Ridge concept.
The organization does not want to be seen as a land grabber but instead would like to build capacity of
the communities to manage lands at the landscape level
The forest faces logging and hunting pressures. Not many families are involved but they are persistent.
The persistence is believed to be owing to the fines not being significant to serve as a deterrent.
Environmental protection and education is via the environmental conservation initiatives.
Need has not arisen to directly engage Department of Environment (DOE) in terms of the
Environmental Protection Act (EPA)
The organization is evaluating blue carbon and carbon financing
TIDE sponsors tourism initiative for livelihoods options
From the meeting with Ya’axché, the below is evident:
The organization faces similar issues as does TIDE in relation to its protected areas
The organization is operating agro-forestry activities as part of landscape management. The activities
are cacao based. Only meeting 10% of demand. Personnel needed to expand operation. Interested in
nursery expansion and establishing a demonstration farm
Golden Stream Village is growing 10% per year so the potential pressure presented by the community is
intensifying.
The organization is working on honey production
The organization has completed above ground biomass survey for reserves to evaluate REDD potential.
Interested in a REDD project
The organization would like to expand this project
Pressures on their lands have eased but maybe owing to the absence of management on Boden Creek
Lands.
The organization in the past has little need to engage DOE in relation to environmental protection.
Environmental protection is done intuitively through conservation advocacy and alternative livelihood
programs.
The organization currently has a court case pending against the DOE
From the meeting with SATIIM, the below is evident:
Equally there exists lots of pressures on the STNP
The organization has been working with communities to develop sustainable forestry programs but
faces lots of barriers to such implementation
The organization recognizes the opportunities for value added on the sustainable forestry activities or
logging activities but the land tenure issues limit the activities of the organization and its ability to help
communities
There is a need for better data management that could benefit all protected areas
40
FIELD VISITS
CAYO DISTRICT
SAN JOSE SUCCOTZ – FRIENDS OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT (FCD)
VACA FOREST RESERVE SITE VISIT
NOVEMBER 28TH
, 2012
In attendance:
Eduardo Quiroga Natural Resources Management Consultant/Team Leader
Jeff Waldon Carbon Accounting Consultant
Ian Morrison Environmental Management Consultant
Marion Cayetano Social Development Consultant
DaedraHaylock Communications Consultant
Rafael Manzanero Executive Director – FCD
Objectives:
The trip was organized in order to complete the following objectives:
General understanding of the area under the protection of the organizations
Scope of Work of the organizations in relation to its protected area and buffer communities
Understand the impacts the buffer communities have on the protected area and vice versa
Understand the organizations’ involvement with the communities either via education projects and/or
livelihood opportunities as well as establishing partnership for the protection of the area
Friends of Conservation and Development (FCD) is responsible for the management of Chiquibul National Park
(CNP)
From the visit with FCD, the below is evident:
The evidence is strong that the Maya Mountain block is under siege.
The area is facing a high prevalence of illegal logging (Mahogany and Cedar) and illegal hunting,
poaching from foreign nationals
Farming and fire are also major threats to the protected areas that make up the Maya Mountain block.
Chiquibul National Park and Forest Reserve faces much if its challenges and encroachments from
foreign nationals, while the Vaca Forest Reserve which is closer to local communities faces illegal
hunting and logging on a subsistence level. As well, the reclaiming of lands for farming purposes is a
challenge faced from both national and foreign nationals in the Maya Mountain block
Gold panning is a threat as well and there currently is operated one legal operation of gold mining. The
concern with this legal mining is the level of monitoring and oversight by the relevant Government
department agency(ies).
Agroforestry with Xate has a major crop has potential and would need further assessment
There is need for the identification of sustainable use of the forest options to be identified and
implemented. FCD as an organization is trying to examine how it can be the proponent of such
programs. Considering that the organization manages public lands, the Forestry Department (FD)
would be the gatekeeper to approve any such operations within the protected lands. In the Vaca area on
lands already excised from the Vaca Forest Reserve, FCD is playing a role in projects like farming and
bee-keeping.
41
Enforcement is a major challenge and needs more support from the BDF, Forest Department and Police.
The gap presented by the lack of two outpost monitoring stations to complete the network of monitoring
stations is a challenge that needs urgent attention.
National issues related to incursion, encroachment and poaching is rampant and the remoteness of the
issue further aggravates the matter and its difficulty to monitor and manage.
There is a need for more resources for patrols and monitoring activities
There is need to engage border communities to extend lessons on best practices and low impact
techniques for small farmers.
FIELD VISITS
ORANGE WALK DISTRICT
SAN FELIPE, RIO BRAVO CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AREA (LA MILPA)
AND GALLON JUG
NOVEMBER 29TH
, 2012
In attendance:
Eduardo Quiroga Natural Resources Management Consultant/Team Leader
Jeff Waldon Carbon Accounting Consultant
Ian Morrison Environmental Management Consultant
Marion Cayetano Social Development Consultant
Peralta Principal – St. Michael’s RC School
Bladimir Rodrigues Manager – La MilpaEcolodge and Research Center
Allistair McPherson General Manager – Gallon Jug
Absent:
DaedraHaylock Communications Consultant
Objectives:
The trip was organized in order to complete the following objectives:
General understanding of the area under the protection of the organization and private landowner and
investor
Scope of Work of the organization and landowner in relation to its protected area and buffer
communities
Understand the impacts the buffer communities have on the protected area and vice versa
Understand the organization and private landowner’s involvement with the communities either via
education projects and/or livelihood opportunities as well as establishing partnership for the protection
of the area
Programme for Belize is responsible for the management of the private protected area Rio Bravo Conservation
& Management Area (RBCMA) which is 3% of the country’s land mass
Gallon Jug is a private operation owned and operated by the Bowen & Bowen Group of Companies and
currently manages several investment projects on the lands, including ecotourism, coffee cultivation and
production, sustainable forestry extraction, along with other activities.
42
From the meeting with Mr. Peralta and PfB, the below is evident:
No need for direct engagement with DOE
Environmental awareness in the primary school is done through the cooperation with Programme for
Belize
Trips are facilitated to the protected area of the RBCMA at least once per year. It is believed the
outreach could be increased. The site visits and education awareness is primarily centered on the
Standard IV and V students
The Organization has a detailed management plan
Conducts ecotourism activities on this area of the RBCMA
Site management includes a compositing toilet and solar energy generation for the La Milpa and Hill
Bank sites
Ecotourism program includes environmental education and research with international universities.
Archaeology research conducted on the property via arrangements with a US based university
All of the employees on the protected area site are drawn from the surrounding communities on either
areas of the protected area.
In the Southern area, sustainable forestry is conducted as well a carbon sequestration project was carried
out
Strong forest fire management program and training for employees
The organization pursued a REDD using VCS
Practice of using wild animals has pets have declined due to environmental education in the schools
From the meeting with Gallon Jug, the below is evident:
Conducts environmentally friendly and sustainable practices to control pollution of the biosphere in its
operation
Including logging, milling of timber and agriculture (coffee, sugar cane and cacao)
Cattle pasturing is as well conducted as well as is ecotourism activities
Spinoff effects and consequences of operations were not explored in detailed, i.e. due to fuel storage,
waste management and emissions control
No engagement on either sides with the Department of Environment
The property has experienced some illegal logging but for the most past the surrounding communities
present little conflict
The Gallon Jug would like to support community development for Sylvester village.
The property is pursuing a REDD project using VCS and CCBA Standards
43
1.3 KBAs target areas selection process
The target areas within the KBAs for the Project were selected through a stakeholder engagement process. Two
workshops were conducted on February 8th, 2013 and February 22
nd, 2013. The first was to select possible sites
and the second to validate the selection.
List of participants at working session
February 8th
, 2013 - ICT Centre, Belmopan
Name of Participant Organization/Department
Wilber Sabido Forest Department
Hannah St. Luce- Martinez Forest Department
AnselDubon National Protected Areas Secretariat
Ian Morrison Consultant
Tanya Santos Forest Department
Judene Tingling Forest Department
Saul Cruz Forest Department
Fernando Tzib Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture
Rasheda Garcia Forest Department
Arlene Maheia-Young National Protected Areas Secretariat
List of participants at validation session
February 22nd
, 2013 - Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development’s
Conference Room
Name of Participant Organization/Department
Marion Cayetano Consultant
Saul Cruz Forest Department
Fernando Tzib Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture
Carren Williams Lands Information Centre, Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture
Arlene Maheia-Young National Protected Areas Secretariat
AnselDubon National Protected Areas Secretariat
Jose Perez Association of Protected Areas Management Organizations
Anthony Mai Department of Environment
44
A set of criteria was developed to rank all the 32 terrestrial protected areas within the KBAs as identified in the
KBAs assessment report from 2007. The set of selection criteria was developed by the National Protected Areas
Secretariat in consultation with the Forest Department and the World Bank. The criteria were grouped into 6
categories: threats, carbon, management capacity, risk factors, socio-economic, and economic values as detailed
below:
1. Threats
Deforestation
Fragmentation of natural habitat
Anthropogenic fire incidence
Incidence of illegal activities (hunting, logging)
Risk of natural activities (fire, hurricanes)
2. Carbon
Carbon sequestration potential
High possibility of regeneration
3. Management Capacity
Lack of management capacity
Lack of human resources for enforcement, conservation and monitoring
4. Risk Factors
Resistance of communities to participate in Project
Geopolitical factors
5. Socio-economic
Poverty levels
Local community dependence on resources in the PA (uses: subsistence, income generation
activities)
6. Economic Values
Watershed catchment/protection
Coastal/river bank protection
7. All criteria received equal weight. After the criteria were enumerated, a working session was held to rank
all of the protected areas within the KBAs (list of participants is available in the Project files). Following this
session, results from the ranking exercise were compiled by the NPAS and Forest Department into a spreadsheet
with the criteria and scoring for each PA. Subsequently, the top scores were analyzed and the top ranking PAs
were identified (See Table 1). Results we ranked with (highest possible score 45) and without risk factors
(highest possible score 39) because the risk factors were agreed to be contentious.
Table 1: Ranking Results for Selection of Target Sites
Results before removing risk factors Results after removing risk factors
Name of PA Score Name of PA Score
Maya Mountain FR 42 Maya Mountain FR 36
Honey Camp NP 39 Columbia River FR 34
Freshwater Creek FR 39 Freshwater Creek FR 34
45
Columbia River FR 39 Honey Camp NP 34
Spanish Creek WS 37 Vaca FR 33
Vaca FR 37 AguasTurbias NP 32
AguasTurbias NP 36 Spanish Creek WS 32
8. After the ranking exercise was conducted, the top seven PAs were vetted as potential candidate sites.
Five PAs were chosen from Table 3 and one additional PA - Chiquibul National Park – was included based on
information from the PA rationalization exercise.
9. Fifteen criteria (Table 2) were used to guide prioritization of the terrestrial protected areas system within
the PA rationalization exercise, allocated to four categories. These criteria were developed with input from
Forest Department personnel and through feedback from protected area managers asked to ‘field test’ the
assessment, to ensure it provided a valid output. Each of these criteria was rated out of a total possible score of
4, with scores then totaled and averaged per protected area. Prioritization scores ranged from 3.33 out of 4.00 for
Columbia River Forest Reserve, considered the highest priority overall within the system, to the lowest score -
1.27 out of 4.00 for Melinda National Park.
Table 2: Terrestrial Prioritization Criteria
1.0 Environmental Values
1.1 Watershed Catchment and Protection
1.2 Wetland Flood Sink Function
1.3 Coastal / River Bank Protection
1.4 Steep Slope Erosion Control
2.0 Biodiversity Status
2.1 Global Recognition for Biodiversity Values
2.2 Value for Under Represented Ecosystems or Ecosystems of Limited Extent
3.0 Socio-Economic Value
3.1 Value for Commercial Extractive Use (timber / non-timber forest products)
3.2 Value for Non-Renewable Resource Extraction - minerals
3.3 Value for Non-Renewable Resource Extraction – petroleum
3.4 Importance for Water Security
3.5 Value for Hydro-electricity Generation
3.6 Traditional Resource Use Dependence
3.7 Tourism / Recreational / Cultural Values
4.0 Key Resilience Features
4.1 Forest Connectivity
4.2 Altitudinal / Lateral Connectivity
10. The highest rated overall, greater than 3.00, were Columbia River Forest Reserve and Chiquibul National
Park. Below are examples of major rating criteria.
11. Watershed Catchment and Protection, Protected Areas rated as VERY HIGH
46
Chiquibul National Park
Columbia River Forest Reserve
Maya Mountain Forest Reserve
Vaca Forest Reserve
12. Based on Species of Global and National Concern, Protected Areas (Meerman, 2007)
Columbia River Forest Reserve
Chiquibul National Park
13. Ecosystems<10,000 acres
Tropical evergreen seasonal needle-leaved lowland forest, well drained
Vaca Forest Reserve
14. Ecosystems<1,000 and <-5,000 acres nationally
Deciduous broad-leaved lowland riparian shrubland in hills
Chiquibul National Park
Columbia River Forest Reserve
Vaca Forest Reserve
15. Ecosystems <1,000 and<-5,000 acres nationally
Tropical evergreen broad-leaved lowland forest, moderately drained, on calcareous soils
Columbia River Forest Reserve
16. Ecosystems <1,000 and <-5,000 acres nationally
Tropical evergreen lower-montane broad-leaved forest
Chiquibul National Park
17. Ecosystems <1,000 and <-5,000 acres nationally
Tropical evergreen broad-leaved lower montane forest with palms
Chiquibul National Park
18. Forest Connectivity, Protected Areas rated as VERY HIGH
Columbia River Forest Reserve
Maya Mountain Forest Reserve
Vaca Forest Reserve
Chiquibul National Park
Freshwater Creek Forest Reserve Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary
19. In addition, APAMO also suggested 4 protected areas in greatest need of strengthening:
Freshwater Creek Forest Reserve, Vaca Forest Reserve, Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary, and
Columbia River Forest Reserve.
20. Subsequently, a validation session was convened to present and discuss the selection process for
the 6 proposed target areas (list of participants is available in the Project files).
21. Based on the analyses and validation/ranking exercises, the final consensus list of PAs to be
included in the Project were:
a. Northern Lowlands KBA
Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary
Freshwater Creek Forest Reserve
b. Maya Mountains Massif KBA
Chiquibul National Park
47
Columbia River Forest Reserve
Vaca Forest Reserve
Maya Mountain Forest Reserve
48
1.4 Participants List for Validation Workshop
Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable DevelopmentManagement and Protection of
Key Biodiversity Areas Project Preparation Grant
Validation Workshop
List of Participants
May 14th, 2013 – George Price Centre for Peace and Development
Name of Participant Organization/Department
1 Ashley Camhi Consultant
2 Arlene Maheia-Young NPAS
3 Guadalupe Rosado NPAS
4 Marion Cayetano Consultant
5 Ian Morrison Consultant
6 Christina Garcia Ya'axché
7 Roberta Pennil Ya'axché
8 Leonides Sosa DOE
9 Lee Mcloughlin Ya'axché
10 Wilber Sabido FD
11 Arreini Palacio Belize Audubon
12 Nayari Diaz-Perez PACT
13 Anthony Mai DOE
14 Celi Cho DOE
15 Martin Alegria DOE
16 Victoria Cawich FD
17 Edgar Eck DOE
18 Fernando Tzib Department of Agriculture
19 Monique Shipstern
20 Heron Moreno Shipstern
21 Lynelle Williams TNC
22 Lester Delgado Shipstern
23 Rafael Manzanero FCD
24 Boris Arevalo FCD
25 Carren Williams Lands Information Centre, MNRA
26 Weiszman Pat MFFSD
27 Tanya Santos Forest Department
28 AnselDubon NPAS
29 Natalie Rosado PACT
30 Raymond Reneau
Rancho Dolores Environment and Development
Group
31 Colin Mathis NCCO
49
Name of Participant Organization/Department
32 Oswaldo Sabido Consultant
33 Jose Perez APAMO
34 Elma Kay ERI
35 Colin Gillett CZMAI
The aim of the validation workshop was twofold:
To present an overview of project objectives, components and proposed activities and results framework
To present the Social Assessment including socioeconomic benefits and sustainable livelihoods framework
The workshop participants also engaged in group exercises to identify community based activities within and
around the target sites.
Figure 1: Social Development consultant presenting social assessment
50
Figure 2: Participants at the validation workshop
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
1.4 Belmopan Consultation Workshop
June 3rd, 2014 George Price Center for Peace and Development Belmopan, Cayo
List of Participants
No. Participant Organization/Village
1 Lester Delgado CSSF
2 Victor Cawich San Pablo Village Council
3 Marlon Garcia San Pablo Village Council
4 Elmer Flores San Esteban Village Council
5 Pascal Walter CSFI
6 Clinton Rhaburn Flowers Bank village
7 Rodney Banner LemonalVillage
8 Arnaldo Melendez Friends for Conservation &Development (FCD)
9 Davis Valdez Progresso Village
10 Esther Aiemesseger CSFI Sartaneja
11 Colleen Joseph Rancho Dolores Village
12 Heron Moreno CSFI- Shipstern
13 Ruth Staine-Dawson National Association of Village Council (NAVCO)
14 E. Alexander S. V. Council, C.M.
15 Dirk Sutherland Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary
16 Pedro Wiens Little Belize Village
17 Patricio Acuna Santa Martha Village, Orange Walk
18 Joel Diaz CSFI
19 Sean Nicolas Bermudian Landing Village
20 TreciaCasasola St. Pauls Bank Village Council
21 Clifton N. St. Pauls Bank Chairperson
22 Weisman Patt MFFSD-SCU
23 Rosalind Joseph Village Council
24 Gloria Banner Lemonal Village
25 Darlene Padron Sustainable Development Unit
26 Aldo Cansino Department of the Environment
27 Raphael Manzanero FCD
28 Derrick Chan FCD
29 Natalie Rosado Protected Areas Conservation Trust
30 Violet Broaster S.C.W.S.
31 Jacob Redcoop Little Belize Village
32 Arlene Maheia-Young NPAS
33 Aretha Mortis NPAS
34 Jose Perez APAMO
35 Natalie Bucknor BEST
63
36 Dwight Neal BEST
37 Lemuel Velasquez BEST
38 Tanya Santos FD
39 Emily Aldana PPU MFED
40 Carlos Monterosso 7 Miles (El Progresso) Village
41 Lin Smith Rancho Dolores Village/Chair
42 AnselDubon NPAS
43 Melanie Smith BEST
64
An overview of the agenda and workshop objectives was provided by the consulting team.
The first presentation by was conducted by the Program Director of the National Protected Areas Secretariat
who outlined the KBA project, its objects, and its components. The various safeguards to be discussed were
introduced.
Question: How will the project affect those who use the protect areas? An explanation was provided that the
Livelihood Restoration Process Framework has mitigation measures to address this.
The Process Framework presentation presented the communities that were selectedand the selection process.
The first interactive discussion revolved around the question of what activities are currently carried out by
their communities in the protect areas? The responses were provided by the community representatives
according to each of the KBAs.
In the north, the activities ranged from agriculture to fishing. The Mennonite representatives clarified that they
do not extract logs from Freshwater creek but do buy lumber from those that have concessions to extract
timber from the KBA. The NGO working in that KBA (Corozal Sustainable Future Initiative) also mentioned
that despite current believe that the KBA is in a degraded condition, reconnaissance and stocktaking that has
been done recently show that the site is better off than previously anticipated. Since the NGO has been
working the area, there has been greater compliance by the communities to protect it. However, New Land, a
new community being established on the margins of the reserve is undergoing widespread clearing.
The communities of the Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary indicated that a number of communities use the
protected area for fishing, birding and extraction of logwood posts. They are concerned that NGO’s come into
the area and restrict them from their livelihood activities which they have been practicing since the days of
their ancestors. It is a relatively small KBA and the number of persons living in and around it makes it difficult
to monitor and comply. However, of recent demarcation and signage has been improving.
Chiquibul National Park is being co-managed by Friends for Conservation and Development (FCD). FCD also
works with farmers in the Vaca Forest Reserve. There were a wide range of issues and challenges facing these
two KBA’s. The Vaca is more used by communities since it is most accessible. The Chiquibul however face
another set of threats most of which are imposed by the Guatemalan communities across the Belizean border.
It is very difficult to monitor due the geographic layout and expanse of the National Park and the fact the it
bordered by the ElijioPanti National Park, the Vaca Forest Reserve, Chiquibul Forest Reserve, the Mountain
Pine Ridge and the Caracol Archeological Site. Persons who use the Vacafor extraction of timber resources
(concessionaires) come as far away as Santa Familia, Bullet Tree and Calla Creek in the western part of the
Cayo District. The Vaca,Challillo and Mollejon Dams are also threats to both of these reserves.
The presentation continued with an overview of what activities will be carried out? Who will it affect?
Mitigation Measures. Community leaders were asked to relate their experience using the protected areas,
when management projects are carried out, how did it affect their livelihood and what measures were put in
place to ensure that they had alternative livelihood.
65
The participants shared that projects seldom ask for their input and they are often not consulted from the
beginning. In the case of the Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary, the rangers would meet them within the
reserve and they would be accompanied out. If they were consulted from the beginning they would know
what the rules and rationale for them, and they would comply as they too want to preserve the wildlife and
habitat. Also, if they were consulted they would be able to share information about nesting sites, seasons for
extraction of animals and plants and they too could serve as community forest rangers.
Those from the Vaca Forest Reserve shared that they were given eviction notice by the Forest Department but
with assistance from FCD they conducted a series of negotiations and special consideration was given to them
to continue cultivating within the reserve. The formalized their group as a farming cooperative and received
extension services and project funding to grow their crops using eco-friendly pesticides and eco-farming
techniques. They now have a stable market and high quality produce.
The presentation continued by outlining the positive and negative impacts of the project. Thereafter, those
who would be eligible to obtain benefits from the project were discussed. The participants were pleased to see
that a wide range of persons and groups were being considered.
The discussion then moved on to the measures to assist affected persons, an extended discussion regarding
persons who are conducting illegal activities in the KBA should not be eligible since a project should not give
benefits to people who break the law. A question was asked about whether or not Guatemalans would be
eligible. While the Social Assessment exercise will determine how communities use the site and what type of
access will be allowed and/or restricted, it was explained that under the World Bank guidelines they would still
be considered eligible users. It is important not to discriminate users based on their nationality. However, it
was stated that the involvement of Government agencies such as the Immigration Department needs to be
consulted on this matter.
The Grievance redress mechanism was presented next. It was agreed that these are steps that must be taken.
A question was posed as to how to address a grievance if it is against the Project Management Unit. The
response was that the second tier allows for that to occur and that the person/group or community could
request their local representatives to address the issue.
Finally, the involuntary resettlement policy was briefly discussed as the project did not expect that anyone
would have to be resettled unless the activities were not in compliance with the designation of the protected
area.
After the break, the presentation moved on to the The Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF). The
first question posed was regarding the name of the document. Why IPPF not Community Planning Framework?
The name suggested that it will focus only on indigenous people when in fact all ethnic groups must be
consulted and given the same courtesy. BEST shared how they came about with their safeguard document and
how they holistically addressed community consultations but emphasized indigenous community planning in
line with World Bank guidelines. The presenter mentioned that the names of the document can be changed
and that the documents will be adapted to address the issues raised as a result of the consultation.
Furthermore, the social assessments will determine a final list of communities and exactly how they impact the
KBA.
66
As the presentation progressed to discuss the adjacent communities a discussion emerged on what criteria
was used to select the communities, discussion on what an adjacent community is. It was important to
establish this so that community representatives could confirm that those who appear on the list were actual
adjacent communities. The definition was refined and accepted to mean those who are proximate, are
traditional users and have access to the KBA’s. Furthermore, it was suggested to divide the groups into primary
users and secondary users with the latter being those who are not geographically proximate but use the
resource occasionally or own land or concessions within the KBA.
The Legal and Institutional framework was presented followed by the consultation Principles. A definition of
Free, Prior and Informed consultation was provided. Inclusion as a guiding principle was also mentioned. The
objectives and benefits of community consultations closed of the presentation.
In the afternoon session, the Environmental Management Framework was presented. The presentation
included forest department legislation, safeguard measures, potential subprojects and mechanism for
implementation and responsible agencies. The role of the community in monitoring and evaluation of all
aspects of the project was discussed. Questions emerged regarding how the subprojects will be selected? It
was explained that PACT will provide the financing but a Steering Committee will review the proposals. The
proposals will be formulated by the communities and the type of project to be implemented will be decided by
the community or group of persons.
The day concluded with a summary of the concerns and overview of the project objectives. The participants
were reminded that the documents will be online by June 10th 2014 at the websites of the NPAS and World
Bank and will be available electronically from the NGO’s working with their community. Any comments and
suggestions will be appreciated.
1.5 Toledo Consultation Workshop
June 6th, 2014 Nazareth Retreat Center Forest Home Village, Toledo District
List of Participants
No. Name Position Organization/Community 1 Rodolfo Morales Chairperson Trio Village, Toledo District
2 Maximilano Makin
Chairperson San Pablo Village, Toledo District
3 Juan Rax
Alcalde San Pablo Village, Toledo District
4 Pablo Choc
Chairperson Indian Creek Village, Toledo District
67
5 Linus Choc
Chairperson Silver Creek Village, Toledo District
6 Domingo Teul Vice-Chairperson Silver Creek Village, Toledo District
7 Alfredo Teul Treasurer Silver Creek Village, Toledo District
8 Pedro Cal
Chairperson San Vicente Village, Toledo District
9 Sebastian Cab
Alcalde San Vicente Village, Toledo District
10 Rafael Tzub
Alcalde San Jose Village, Toledo District
11 Diego Oh
Chairperson
Na LuumCaj Village, Toledo District
12 Rudolfo Oh
Alcalde Na LuumCaj Village, Toledo District
13 Abelino Zuniga
Vice-Chairperson Medina Bank Village, Toledo District
14 Orlando Chan
Alcalde Bladen Village, Toledo District
15 Zulma Portillo
Community Member Bella Vista Village, Toledo District
16 Elmer Requena Terrestrial Biologist
Toledo Institute for Development and Environment (TIDE), Hopeville Area, Toledo District
17 Mark Miller Executive Director Plenty Belize, Jose Maria Nunez Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District
18 Christina Garcia
Executive Director Ya’axché Conservation Trust, 2 Alejandro Vernon Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District
19 Roberta Pennell
Development Officer Ya’axché Conservation Trust, 2 Alejandro Vernon Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District
20 Zee McLoughlen PA Manager Ya’axché Conservation Trust, 2 Alejandro Vernon Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District
21 BartholomewTeul Programme Manager Ya’axché Conservation Trust, 2 Alejandro Vernon Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District
No. Name Position Organization/Community 22 Pantaleon Escobar
Project Coordinator Humana People to People
23 Mario Chavarria
Executive Director Toledo Development Corporation, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District
24 Thomas Tillett Project Coordinator Toledo Cacao Growers Association, George Price Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District
25 Tomas Caal
Chairman, Pro-tem Committee
Friends of Lu Ha, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District
26 Christoper Nesbitt
Director Maya Mountain Research Farm, San Pedro Columbia Village, Toledo District
27 Celini Logan
Farm Coordinator Maya Mountain Research Farm, San Pedro Columbia Village, Toledo District
28 Yanira Pop
Forest Officer Forest Department
29 Raul Chun
Forest Officer Forest Department
68
30. Aretha Mortis
Office Administrator National Protected Areas Secretariat, Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development
31. Guadalupe Rosado
Communications Officer National Protected Areas Secretariat, Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development
32. Arlene Maheia-Young
Program Director National Protected Areas Secretariat, Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development
32. AnselDubon
Program Officer National Protected Areas Secretariat, Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development
The consultation in the Toledo District included both non-indigenous communities representing the Maya
Mountain North and indigenous communities representing Columbia Forest Reserve (CRFR).
The consultation was conducted in four languages: English, Kekchi, Mopan and Spanish.
Figure 3: Mayan Translator conveying message in Kekchi for the community representatives
The Toledo Cacao Growers Association took the opportunity to give an overview of their organization as
Cacao is considered a viable option for alternative livelihoods. The purpose of presentation was also to
give community participants the idea of how community agro-forestry helps in maintaining biodiversity
while promoting sustainable livelihoods.
The presentation highlighted that there is a huge local and international (export) market for Belizean
cacao. -Buyers want 1 million pound of dried cacao but TCGA is only supplying 250,000 pounds. In 2013 an
outbreak of disease caused a reduction in production by half.
69
25 % of locally produced cacoa goes to local markets and the rest goes to international markets. Price has
increased from 8 cents a pound to 2.65 cents for dried cacao beans. Exports are based on seasonal
contracts 85% and the contracts are negotiated on world market price. TCGA is getting prices above world
market.
The TCGA representative stated that cacoa is a family friendly crop since children and adults participate
and benefit. The current focus is on product quality and expansion. The organization intends to improve
yield through technology. It has drying facilities in several villages; expanding drying facilities in villages (to
facilitate drying from farmers in other villages). Some of the villages adjacent to the KBA are already
involved in cacao growing and other expressed interest.
An overview of the KBA project was conducted by the Program Director.
A concern from San Vicente was that it has expanded after the designation of the protected area and
stated that they need land for agriculture and wanted to know if they will be able to have activities within
the protected areas, not only cacao but also crops like corn, etc.
It was explained that through the project, there may be opportunities such as those that exist in Vaca
Forest Reserve for small farmers; however this would have to be done after the development of a
community sustainable forest management plan for the area.
-Mr. Requena from TIDE stated that such a project should have come about from 1990s. “It is great
initiative where government, NGOS and community people are coming together to plan and better use
the PAs”. There is broad support the plans for the project but there is need for engagement with
communities currently using the resources. The project has identified the challenges but there is need for
prior communication.
Figure 4: Representative from TIDE expressing his support for the project
70
Nah LumKa- some community members are lease owners near the Columbia River forest reserve.
Question: Will the project open the lines for the protected areas-meaning clearly demarcate the
boundary?
It was explained that the project activities include clear demarcation of the boundaries of the protected
areas.
Trio Village- these are important facts for them because they also are very close to the Maya mountain
forest reserve and use the area for fishing, agriculture crops such as pineapple and extraction of house
posts.
A presentation was conducted on the Livelihood restoration framework by the Consultant.
-The new definition was discussed and all were in agreement that the definition adequately reflects what
an adjacent community is.
As part of the presentation an extended discussion was conducted on which communities have direct
access to the protected areas?
Columbia River Forest Reserve:
Nah LumKa-very close to Columbia River Forest Reserve
Santa Elena/Santa Cruz communities manage the Rio Blanco National Park which is very close to CRFR and
they have a vested interest in it.
Pueblo Viejo-does not have immediate access but should be considered as people use the FR occasionally.
San Antonio-portion of Columbia River FR de-reserved. The representative mentioned that Crique Jute
should be included since they also use the reserve.
Concern-Indian Creek farmers are within the protect areas boundary due to the boundary curving.
Community involvement is essential since they know exactly which areas they are using. It is essential to
involve when the social assessment and community mapping is done and to conduct activity to demarcate
the protected area.
71
Figure 5: Alcalde of Indian Creek voicing his concern regarding demarcation of protected areas boundary
Golden Stream is only 15 minutes away from the protected area. Big Falls village, Hicatee and Silver Creek
are also users. The project needs to take closer look at communities that may be using the areas. It was
explained that social assessments will be conducted to determine level of use and final listing.
San Pedro Columbia-30 persons using the area as primary source of water.
San Miguel-next to CRFR and Jalacte should be included.
Maya Mountain Forest Reserve:
Trio, Bella Vista, San Pablo, San Isidro, Bladen (Toledo) and a new Mennonite called Roseville (behind
Redbank) all use the MMN. There is also a private land owner in the area-12,000 acres- Stoufer estate.
Concern-how will the project address issue of de-reservation?
Concern - the problem of political interference-Maya mountain forest reserve under high threat from de-
reservation.
Response-through the system wide impacts- ensuring the implementation of the NPAS bill and
development of regulations for processes such as de-reservation as outlined in the National protected
areas system plan. Impact for 2.1a-this will impact success of the project as de-reservation will negatively
affect communities using the areas.
As part of the presentation, a discussion regarding livelihood required blocks of communities to discuss:
From your experience using the protected areas and when projects relating to protected areas
management has been implemented: How has your livelihoods been affected?
72
What measures were put into place to ensure that you have alternative and sustainable livelihoods?
Group work collected.
Presentation continued to discuss livelihood options and sub-projects.
Question: What does small scale pastures have to do with protect areas management? Small scale-sheep
and deer and gibnut can be used along with agroforestry systems; rather than hunting deer-small scale
pasture can support diversification of income.
Include lands and agriculture departments in the project that may be promoting other initiatives that are
not in compliance with the project.
- Establish Guidelines for silvipastoral systems.
Villager of San Pedro Columbia stated that agro-ecology can include conversion of land to forested land
with medicinal plants. Really liked that the project is addressing conversion of abandoned milpa to
forested areas
The villager further stated that concerns are not static concerns; they are vital due to growth in
population where PAs will be under increased threats due to land for agriculture; address bad agricultural
practices-from citrus, milpa etc. They are open to supporting the project. San Pedro Columbia –reiterates
that they fully support the project. Good initiatives for sub project-community need to decide what is
needed.
Recommendation –to Plan follow up community consultation on the safeguards.
Only alcalde/chairpersons are invited at national level but at the local level the communities need to be
consulted directly.
Consider needs of the communities to have livelihood opportunities in the project area. The communities
know what they need. The project needs to look at communities at a larger scale-access roads, local
development perspective and whole picture of the community. Management system for communal land
needs to be clearly outlined.
Presentation of Community Consultation process framework: Preparation of documents and need to get
document in format and level that they can understand and comprehend (technical). Language and
complexity-documents should be summarized and translate (there are no recognized written forms of the
Maya languages).
Transportation-bus should be chartered to mobilize communities or leaders so that they do not have to
limit their participation time to be on schedule with the village transportation where it exists.
Discussion: What is the culturally appropriate way to consult communities adjacent to MMFR and CRFR?
Trio village chairperson- Congratulate and applauds the approach Ya’axché takes in working with their
communities-near MMFR. They come and meet the people in the community. Ya’axché representatives
73
mentioned that they do not have an official consultation protocol- they only have reports on the
consultations. It is done as due diligence with trio and Bella vista to see if community forest concession
can be established in Maya Mountain North.
Each time they asked what people would like to know and they followed up and kept in constant contact
with villagers.
Best way to send information:
Reach out to the chairperson and Alcalde – at least 21 calendar days in advance-before the meet with the
end of the month-set time. Some community conduct communal cleaning (fajina) done every three
months and conduct meeting after.
Indian creek and San Jose villages meet end of every month; this is combined with collection of water
fees. After or during-they give information on the community; this is a good way of keeping people
informed.
Bladen village -meet once a month on the last Sunday of every month due to community working on
farms etc.
Most Chairpersons and Alcalde have cell phones; San Vicente and Jalacte have Guatemalan cell service.
It was mentioned that information can be sent through organizations such as Humana gets information to
communities because they have structures in communities. Radio-discussion shows to discuss and explain
to broader communities. Working through the NGO community has been a plus. BEST has community
coordinators. TCGA-has a network for farmers through drying centres–extension officers, farmer leaders.
Weekly meeting with members -producing cacao.
At the village level, first contact should be the two leaders-Alcalde and chairpersons. Meet with elected
leaders 2-3 weeks prior to consultations.
Question: What is the most effective way to reach out to the women?
PulcheriaTeul-gives very useful information. In Bladen-go through the chairperson-Ms. Pauuis female and
she contacts the females. In communities where male chairpersons-women and men are invited together.
In San Vicente-mostly men having meeting.
If women’s meeting the facilitator must be a female. Female school principals can be used. Indian creek-
more women starting to come out of the shyness in attending meetings. Medina Bank has a female
Alcalde.
Women groups-let them know the project will benefit women also. Certain issues may be considered –
male or female relations. Livelihood activities for male or female can be discussed separately. Focus on
activities for families
Discussion on Grievance mechanism
74
Local level committee –not only for grievance but also for the general implementation of the project.
Might need to be looked at along with rural development due to sustainability after the project.
Question: who is the final authority in villages? Community, alcalde or chairman? The Alcade but in
consultation with the Chairman. In 2015 –new alcaldes will be selected (2 years) ; 3 years for village
councils (1 more year-2015).
It is important for projects to exist beyond the political structures of the villages. Most of the time there is
loss of information due to change in leadership; session with interest groups and broader community;
important point-some persons may have agenda-but the community would be able to buffer against
individual positions or interest.
Communities to see how the project fit into the community-community development plans and project fit
into overall plan-where community wants to go. Often times, plans are developed but not implemented.
It is important to have local representatives at decision-making level.
Decentralized management of projects; involve communities in decision-making throughout the process
and meaningfully. Recommendation is to have NAVCO on TAC or to have local level committees to
provide advice on the sub-projects.
Presentation continued on how local committees will be established; and its functions including
addressing grievance. It was reiterated that issues must be addressed at the local level-first.
The day concluded with a summary of the concerns and overview of the project objectives. The
participants were reminded that the documents will be online by June 10th 2014 at the websites of the
NPAS and World Bank and will be available electronically from the NGO’s working with their community.
Any comments and suggestions will be appreciated.
75
1.6 Indigenous Leaders Consultation
June 27th, 2014 Toledo Institute for Development and Environment’s (TIDE) Conference Room Hopeville Area, Toledo District
List of Participants
No. Name Position Organization/Community 1. Pablo Mis Programme Coordinator Maya Leaders Alliance; Toledo Alcalde
Association
2.
Martin Chen
Chairperson Maya Leaders Alliance
3. Candido Cho Leader Maya Leaders Alliance
4. Adriano Mas Member Maya Leaders Alliance
5. Alfonso Cal Second Alcalde President
Golden Stream Village, Toledo District Toledo Alcalde Association
6. Ignacio Sho First Alcalde Deputy Leader
San Marcos Village, Toledo District Toledo Alcalde Association
7. Vicente Sackul
First Alcalde Member, Executive Board
Laguna Village, Toledo District Toledo Alcalde Association
8. Louis Pop First Alcalde Golden Stream Village, Toledo District
9. Jose Che
First Alcalde San Pedro Columbia Village, Toledo District
10. Bartholomew Teul Programme Manager Ya’axché Conservation Trust, 2 Alejandro Vernon Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District
11. Ronald Neal Intern Maya Leaders Alliance
12. Timoteo Mesh Intern Maya Leaders Alliance and Toledo Alcalde Association
13. Natalie Bucknor Consultant BEST
14. Melanie Smith Consultant BEST
15. Dwight Neal Consultant BEST
The meeting was attended by a total of 12 participants including leaders from the Maya Leader Alliance
and the Toledo Alcalde Association. The meeting was conducted in English and Maya and a translator was
present to translate from English to Ketchi and vice versa.
The project description, objective, components and selected KBA’s were presented from the
Environmental Management Framework. The presentation continued with the Livelihood Restoration
Framework. A question was asked by TAA, what the involvement does the Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries
and Sustainable Development have in project? The response was that the Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries
and Sustainable Development will be implementing the project and is currently preparing for the project
76
to begin. The question was asked regarding why they are doing a consultation on the documents? It was
explained that World Bank funding require that projects have applicable safeguards in place before the
project begins. The TAA representative then stated that the Ministry is basically obligated by the World
Bank to develop the framework but this is not normally how they [the Ministry] do their work.
The adopted definition of adjacent community was discussed. There were no concerns or comments.
The presentation continued with the potential impact of the project and the mitigation measures. The first
concern regarding activity 1.1a was presented by Pablo Mis of the Maya Leader Alliance. The legislation on
land tenure will be revised but there are various difficulties with that aspect since there is no documentation
of land distribution and land use is not properly document, so it would be difficult to use that as a basis for
how the land tenure legislation revision.
When asked by the consulting team how is the land distributed and used in communal lands, since at this point the system is not clear. For example, it is difficult to determine how someone becomes a communal land user? Why would a user lose their benefits? What are the rights and responsibilities of the users? Is there documentation anywhere on that? The respondents indicated that that reflects the position of the Prime Minister. He has expressed the same things. It is clear that the document is saying one thing and the government’s position is something else. The genuine position of the Maya communities is to have established boundaries of the Maya community. Currently a lot of communities now keep their boundaries clean. Even so, the Maya never gave up their rights to the Protected Areas. The MLA representative also informed the team that the TAA had drafted the Alcaldes Jurisdiction Bill 2011, a
document which articulates the requirement for land use and it also responds to the other questions.
However, no response has been received from local government since 2011 when it was submitted.
A question was posed by the consulting team to the participants about how communities who currently use
the protected areas will be affected by the project especially since not all communities use the PA
communally? The response was that the Alcaldes Jurisdiction Bill articulates the governance and process of
how the system works but that has not been embraced by the government. These were the same issue
brought up in the REDD+ process, they stumbled on it. It is not so much how communities will be affected but
more that threats can be mitigated when government and Maya communities are able to sitand work
something out. The Government does not recognize communal land use. The Government does not talk about
Maya land rights. Therefore, the Maya people believe that government is not accountable, so, this and any
other framework is not binding. The way to mitigate threats to the communities is to recognize communal land
use.
When the discussion moved to 1.2 another concern was lodged. How would the project ensure that the sub-
projects or funding actually benefit the community? Mr. Caal, the President of the TAA, shared that he has a
lot of experience with projects that are implemented spending millions of dollars and the community did not
benefit. (a few were discussed). He further stated that they identify key development areas but these do not
benefit. The presentation skipped to the measures to assist affected persons component to show the project
will ensure input from the onset. It was also mentioned by the facilitator that the project is yet in the planning
stage and it is at this stage that the foundation must be set to ensure that communities benefit and that they
have input on how the project will be implemented.
77
Returning to the project components- it was highlighted in the section on other restrictions that in the “case
that indigenous users of forest resources are affected, free, prior and informed consultation leading to broad
community support will be required for Livelihood Restoration Framework Operation Policy 4.12”. The main
concern was that the term free, prior and informed consultation should read, consultation and CONSENT. The
participants stated that in their experience the government consistently uses consultation to mean that it was
presented and marks it off on their checklist. Consent is more binding; it means that there is more serious
commitment. Consultation does not give a solid establishment. In the case of Canada’s indigenous peoples,
they are based on consent. Consent mean agreement, consultation merely indicates that you were informed
and your concerns were noted. The current court case of SATIIM vs. US Energy shows how consultation and
consent are two different things.
Component 2.1 was presented. The participants mentioned 2.1a-declaration, re-alignment and de-reservation
of PAs is very good, since communities want to keep the area under protection. The Alcalde of Santa Cruz
asked if any of the projects will help communities to demarcate their boundaries. The response was that it was
not known, since the projects have to be community-driven, so once it falls under any of the components then
it will be eligible. The presentation was skipped to possible sub-projects to give an overview of what type of
sub-projects would be implemented.
On the same topic, the consulting team was reminded by the participants that the Maya communities are still
using organic customary practices and their practices already have some built in environmental safeguards.
The first presentation concluded with a review of eligibility, the grievance redress mechanism andmention that
if necessary the involuntary resettlement plan will come into effect.
A presentation on the community consultation framework followed. At the onset of the presentation, it was
explained that the document has two components: Section 1 discusses how adjacent communities in general
will be consulted and section 2: discusses how indigenous communities in particular will be consulted. It was
also explained that in the Belmopan consultation the concern that the document focuses only on Indigenous
Peoples when in fact there were other ethnicities participating in the project led to the restructuring of the
document.
The Legal and Institutional framework was mentioned. The only inputwas that even though there are two
types of local leaders both leaders try to find equity and equal rights.
The presentation moved on to the adjacent communities identified by the various consultation. The only
concern was that Big Falls should be a primary user not a secondary user, therefore, should be moved from
Table 3 to Table 2.
The presentation then moved onthe indigenous people’s consultation process,the TAA presented the
consulting team with a copy of their approved consultation protocol which outlines the process and protocols
for getting participation from the indigenous Maya of the south. The consultants assured the TAA that the
document will be updated to ensure that they align as much as possible with both Government policies and
the TAA’s consultation protocol.
78
The presentation continued with the planning process, the disclosure mechanism and a quick reminder that
there is a grievance mechanism in place. The floor was open for additional comments. The main concern
centered around two main issues: consultation and commitment.
The first issue was that their experience working with Government has not been positive. It is not clear how
binding Governments decisions will be in this project. There was no indication of what will happen if GOB does
not adhere to its agreements with the communities.
Another question was asked about how the REDD+ will support the project. The consultants shared that this
project has various components that will support the REDD+. It is unclear if the REDD+ will happen and
similarly they went through the same exercise with the communities as the KBA project is now doing.
A concern was brought up regarding equal representation. It was noted from the literature that there is a
steering committee made up of CEO’s and technical people. Where is the community representation on that
committee? The consulting team mentioned that a representative group such as APAMO has been considered
to sit on the PSC. However, the participants stated that they [APAMO] represents the environmental
community. There should be representatives of communities as well as ‘indigenous communities’. This will
ensure that Mayan concerns are highlighted at that level. When government and technical persons do not
agree with Maya Leaders then there is discouragement on the part of leaders.
The document states that there will be a mediation committee at the community level? How inclusive will that
be? What representation will they have on the Steering Committee level? For example, the REDD SC is a body
of key stakeholders to advise project management unit not just CEO’s.
The final and very extensive discussion revolved around the issue of consultation. The participants felt that
even with the consultations that have been done, the indigenous communities have not been adequately
represented. Communities need to understand the project. They need to discuss how they will contribute to
making it work and how projects will affect/benefit them. One Alcalde asked if there will be individual
consultations in communities and he would like to see consultation done at community level.
The consultants were reminded that even though documents were sent to the MLA and TAA not all Alcalde
were able to access it electronically and some had only seen the document prior to the meeting. As a result,
the documents have not been digested. One suggestion was to have a focus group working session be
conducted with leaders and community members of the adjacent communities. Another suggestion proposed
that the meeting be with all Executive members of the MLA & TAA since not all were able to come because of
it being a work day and because of flooding of some rivers. This meeting should include representatives of
adjacent communities. An all-day session should be held. Saturday is better day for meetings. Letter will be
sent to head of TAA & MLA. Letter will be sent to head of TAA & MLA. The continuous consultation is
important so that everyone is aware. At the community level, there are community meetings. Once the leaders
consult with their people andback to the project then freeproper and consultation would not be another
checklistinstead it will be dialogue.
Mr. Caal mentioned that projects can be successful if they ensure wide and equal representation. Some of
their members don’t fully understand what the KBA project is about sothat when they leave the assemblythey
go backtheir community with the correct information. He did not feel that with the discussion throughout the
morning was extensive enough to provide them with the information to go back to their community.
79
Next session should be a full working day so as to receive feedback on documents for adjustments. It was
suggested that the next consultation could be done as early as July 26th 2014, in Golden Stream or San Pablo. It
was further suggested that this meeting be done with the Ministry so that there is dialogue between
government and the Maya communities. This is especially important so that when the project begins there has
been already certain level of commitment between both.
Principles of the Toledo Alcades Association Consultation Framework The consultation framework applies to policy initiatives, legislative proposal, administrative measure, development, economic project, or any other action that may affect the lands, territories or well-being of the Maya people.
- Process must be culturally appropriate, timely, meaningful, in good faith and meet international normative standards, particularly the requirement of free, prior and informed consent.
- Consultation must begin at the planning stage and continue throughout the life cycle of the proposed action or activity.
- Customary rules must be respected, including deliberative communication methods, it includes, but not limited to seeking permission to enter village lands for the purpose of resource use or extraction, or to gain access to cultural sites. Preliminary information must be provided at the earliest time possible.
- Maya people reserve the right not to accept any of the initiatives or other action that contravenes their consultation framework.
- The TAA/MLA Consultation framework makes it abundantly clear the making contact and exchanging
information with the Indigenous Leaders does not mean consent. After receipt of request to consult, the TAA shall inform the proponent if the request is accepted and, together with the proponent, develop a mutually acceptable consultation schedule.
- At the Toledo Alcaldes Association, the General Assembly is the fundamental authority for decision making. The executive body carries the decision of the assembly. The individual Alcaldes register their vote on an issue based on the directive of the village meeting on a specific issue.
- Where relocation or settlement becomes necessary as part of a mitigate measure the ESCEI must
include a clear Settlement Action Plan and Livelihood Restoration Plan of the affected village.
80
Figure 8: Participants who attended consultation
1. 1.7 Summary of Concerns from all consultations & Response
# Stakeholder concern Response/action
1 In the Belmopan consultation held on June 3, 2014 there was a concern about how the communities were selected/or would be selected as beneficiaries? This was an important question since it would determine whether or not the list of adjacent communities adequately reflected the communities who use the PA.
It was suggested that ‘adjacent communities’ should mean communities that are geographically proximate and/or have traditionally used the PA, and/or have direct access to the PA. As a result, it was agreed to use the definition and to also differentiate communities in a listing of primary and secondary users. It was also reported that soon after project implementation and before management plans are prepared, detailed social assessments will be conducted for each protected area. The Social assessments will result in a final list of communities selected as beneficiaries. Furthermore, specific tasks to be undertaken in the social assessment are included but not limited to those listed on page 23 of the IPPF.
2 The land tenure legislation component was questioned since it can be assumed that it means the current land tenure process will be reviewed. (landowners tax incentives)
At the workshop, Forest Department personnel clarified that the project implicitly states that the part of the legislation to be reviewed is the taxation system or specific clauses in the legislation which act as disincentives for persons who maintain forest cover and the current system of taxing landowners’ high rates if they leave the land ‘undeveloped’. Project Component 1.1a states: one key factor driving
81
deforestation in Belize is the existing land tenure legislation, which requires that titled lands be cleared by owners to be considered ‘developed’. This creates incentives for landowners to clear the land in an effort to meet the requirements of ‘development’ without which landowners are charged a higher land tax.
3 Participants discussed the practice of projects coming into communities to enforce laws without their knowledge of the new laws and without their consent. They also shared experiences regarding projects being implemented where the agencies predetermine what will be done and who will participate. These project works with communities on a ‘trial and error’ system making it difficult for communities to be open to other projects. The Alcades Association was concerned that there is a precedence of projects destined for development areas but in reality the funds does not reach the communities. A concern was brought up regarding equal representation. It was noted from the literature that there is a steering committee made up of CEO’s and technical people. Where is the community representation on that committee? The consulting team mentioned that a representative group such as APAMO has been considered to sit on the PSC. However, the participants stated that they [APAMO] represent the environmental community. There should be representatives of communities as well as ‘indigenous communities’. This will ensure that Mayan concerns are highlighted at that level. When government and technical persons do not agree with Maya Leaders then there is discouragement on the part of leaders.
During the workshop, it was communicated that the project is still in the design phase and that the consultation process will be throughout the project cycle and based on the consultation protocol outlined for the project and the communications strategy. It was also identified that the sub-projects will be community driven to address needs identified at the local level. The MFFSD has agreed to establish local level committees (identified in the grievance mechanism) that will serve as working groups with membership from the adjacent communities for each protected area which may be affected by project interventions. It will also include, but not be limited to, representatives from the District Association of Village Councils (DAVCO). The Local level committees to be established for the two southern sites, Colombia River Forest Reserve and Maya Mountain Forest Reserve will include representatives from the Indigenous communities to be identified by the TAA and/or MLA. The local level committees will serve as a formal group to advise not only on the project issues, but issues related to land tenure and project issues and to foster dialogue. This is similar to what has been established for the REDD+ project. Additionally, and to further engage the local level communities, the Technical Advisory Committee will meet with the local level communities to address specific issues that may arise.
4 A recurrent topic was that of livelihoods disruption.
Through the presentations it was clarified what mitigation measures will be taken into consideration and what type of projects would be eligible under the alternative livelihood and forest community management sub-projects. Furthermore, the Livelihood Restoration Framework, which will be implemented through the project, was prepared to mitigate impacts on livelihoods. As a result, affected parties will be eligible for support from the livelihood subprojects.
5 The Indigenous Leaders were not in agreement with the principle of
The Government of Belize, due its ongoing litigation with the Maya Land Rights case is not in a position to require consent
82
consultation. They felt that it should read consultation and CONSENT
4 as this is seen
as more binding for both parties. The example between SATIIM vs. US Energy below is outlined.
from Indigenous groups or communities as part of the overall consultation framework. However, the Government is committed to meaningful consultation and the inclusion of all relevant comments and recommendations from communities. The plan is to do this at all levels for the overall project and the sub-projects we intend to implement.
6 The title of the Safeguard document Indigenous People Planning Framework was questioned at the Belmopan consultation since it implied that it will focus only on indigenous peoples when in fact the project was serving most of the ethnic groups in Belize.
Suggestions were made to rename the document to reflect that it is a community consultation process. The example of BEST’s culturally appropriate community consultation document was expressed and it was agreed to adopt the name.
7 The TAA/MLA explained that at the community level, there are community meetings. Once the leaders consult with their people and back to the project then free proper and consultation would not be another checklist instead it will be dialogue.
The Ministry, through the RPP process has communicated to the MLA and TAA that projects like REDD+ and KBA will have added benefits such as improved dialogue and collaborative planning, social and environmental safeguards, improved land use, forest and land governance reforms which are needed. However, for us to realize benefits we need to make investments in time, effort and financial resources during project implementation. Therefore, specific community level consultation will be pursued during implementation before project activities/components are carried out.
8 A recommendation was made for a full working day so as to receive feedback on documents for adjustments. It was suggested that the next consultation could be done as early as July 26
th 2014, in Golden
Stream or San Pablo. It was further suggested that this meeting be done with the Ministry so that there is dialogue between government and the Maya communities. This is especially important so that when the project begins there has been already certain level of commitment between both.
At the start of project implementation the Ministry will seek to engage a Community Liaison for non-indigenous communities and an Indigenous Peoples’ Liaison, with financial support from the project to work with the communities and IP groups such as MLA and TAA to ensure effective participation and representation during project implementation. As indicated in the workshops with the communities, the safeguard instruments are not static documents and they will be revised as necessary. Furthermore, as stated above in response to comment # 7, at the start of project implementation, the Project Unit will work with communities, NGOs and TAA/MLA to organize specific community meetings to discuss the overall project and update the communities on the social and environmental safeguard documents.
The Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development remains committed to maintaining and strengthening the dialogue and finding solutions to forest loss and degradation that is in the best interest of
4The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples requires States to consult and cooperate in good faith with the
indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them (article 19). States must have consent as the Objective of consultation before any of the following actions are taken: • The adoption of legislation or administrative policies that affect indigenous peoples (article 19) • The undertaking of projects that affect indigenous peoples’ rights to land, territory and resources, including mining and other utilization or exploitation of resources (article 32)
83
both indigenous peoples and the national government. However, achieving this will no doubt require further dialogue and maintaining a commitment to sustainable development for all citizens. Therefore, the Ministry will ensure that the structures and methodology employed in the project will include broad participation and employ the most culturally appropriate system to obtain community and stakeholders support.